Donald Trump will, I suspect, win Iowa handily, with around 60% of the vote.
The big question is, can Hayley be second by a large margin?
And I think she can. In the Iowa Caucuses, if you're not at the threshold, you need to alternative vote yourself. And I think a lot (maybe essentially all) of the not-Trump vote is going to coalesce around Hayley.
If she is second, and pulls out a 30+% number, then the race for who is against Trump is over. It is Hayley versus Trump.
And suddenly, she has a lot of attention, and the fact she is polling better against Biden, comes into play.
New Hampshire is next. And there independents can vote (and there is, effectively, no Democratic primary). On forced choice, independents break heavily for Hayley over Trump. And if Democratic leaning independents - who are fearful of a second Trump Presidency - go out and cast their vote for her, she can win.
Trump has a very - errr - hard 40%. But his next 20% is soft. Make it one-on-one, and make it so that his opponent polls better against Biden, and the race is suddenly (if not wide open) then much more exciting.
All this, of course, depends on Hayley having an excellent ground game in Iowa (and I have no idea if she does). And on independents in New Hampshire.
What are the odds on Hayley for Republican nominee again?
Believe that Smithson the Younger errs when he says that. "In the Iowa Caucuses, if you're not at the threshold, you need to alternative vote yourself. And I think a lot (maybe essentially all) of the not-Trump vote is going to coalesce around Hayley."
For past Iowa precinct caucuses, DEMOCRATS have had rules requiring minimum theshold with provision for supporters of candidates NOT making the cut to chose an alternative who does/
But REPUBLICANS have NEVER had that rule; instead, Iowa GOP has always conducted a strait-up vote, with candidates awarded national convention delegates in proportion to their STATEWIDE vote totals.
NOTE that it is possible under Republican rules for Democrats and Independents to "cross over" and vote in GOP precinct caucuses PROVIDED they (re-)register as Republicans, which they can do (apparently) at their local caucus meetings.
Which MIGHT be a factor in Nikki Haley's favor, as with potential Dem/Ind crossovers in New Hampshire primary.
Re Iowa. Haley will take a good second place, win South Carolina and then first again in New Hampshire. From then it will be a shoe in. When she is President will she pardon Trump???
I wonder how Trump would do as an independent against Biden and Haley.
He can't. Having filed for the Republican primaries he can't now run as an independent if he flunks the nomination.
Is that so? I never knew that.
Sounds like the kind of restriction on an individual's liberty I would not expect from the USA.
Re Iowa. Haley will take a good second place, win South Carolina and then first again in New Hampshire. From then it will be a shoe in. When she is President will she pardon Trump???
I wonder how Trump would do as an independent against Biden and Haley.
He can't. Having filed for the Republican primaries he can't now run as an independent if he flunks the nomination.
Is that so? I never knew that.
Sore loser laws.
Six states have them officially, including Texas.
Several others have filings for the primaries and the nominations at the same time so you have to declare your party affiliation and can't change it.
Finally, several states have the power to informally refuse him nomination. Most of them are Republican and if he can't run in them it wouldn't actually even be much good to his hurt feelings running.
Edit - there's quite an interesting article on it here from the Seattle Times:
"Western elites loathe their voters. Their contempt is palpable Politicians can barely hide their true views for long enough to beg for your vote. It’s no wonder populism is surging Janet Daley"
Daley, like all such cheap writers, ignores the fact that governments have to manage the fact that the people want more than one thing at a time and that sometimes these wants come into conflict, and sometimes they are impossible. This is called politics or statesmanship.
Re Iowa. Haley will take a good second place, win South Carolina and then first again in New Hampshire. From then it will be a shoe in. When she is President will she pardon Trump???
I wonder how Trump would do as an independent against Biden and Haley.
He can't. Having filed for the Republican primaries he can't now run as an independent if he flunks the nomination.
Is that so? I never knew that.
Sore loser laws.
Six states have them officially, including Texas.
Several others have filings for the primaries and the nominations at the same time so you have to declare your party affiliation and can't change it.
Finally, several states have the power to informally refuse him nomination. Most of them are Republican and if he can't run in them it wouldn't actually even be much good to his hurt feelings running.
That didn't stop John Anderson getting 7% of the vote in the 1980 election as an Independent despite having fought Reagan for the Republican nomination earlier that year and lost.
Lots of states don't have such 'sore loser laws.'
Given how far ahead Trump is in polls he will almost certainly win the early primaries and caucuses anyway. Only if he is convicted and jailed and then fails to win a majority of delegates by the convention will he likely be stopped from getting the nomination by the GOP establishment at the convention.
Re Iowa. Haley will take a good second place, win South Carolina and then first again in New Hampshire. From then it will be a shoe in. When she is President will she pardon Trump???
I wonder how Trump would do as an independent against Biden and Haley.
He can't. Having filed for the Republican primaries he can't now run as an independent if he flunks the nomination.
Is that so? I never knew that.
Sounds like the kind of restriction on an individual's liberty I would not expect from the USA.
You're right, the USA is famous for its liberty.
It wasn't the last major nation to abolish slavery, for example.*
They ousted the main conservative party after 16 years in power at a Federal election just 2 years ago.
Does not bode that well for Starmer, albeit most likely on current polls it would be another CDU and SPD coalition given the AfD remain beyond the pale in Germany despite polling over 20% in most polls
Given that Starmer isn't the chancellor of the exchequer and deputy prime minister in the current government the situation isn't very similar.
Also the SPD were polling in the teens at the equivalent point in the last German parliament.
Union+Greens is a bit more likely than Union+SPD, although it's possible neither would actually get a majority on current polling.
The only combination which would have a majority on current polling is Union + AfD but even Merz, despite being right of Merkel, has ruled that out at Federal level
Maybe you are forgetting that parties that don't get 5% don't get into the Bundestag? In some of the latest polls that would mean only Union, AfD, Greens and SPD getting MPs.
Union + Greens or Union + SPD would be majorities in those polls.
Even where FDP just scrapes in Union + Greens or Union + SPD usually just gets a majority (or of course Union + any other 2 would be viable).
Far from certain that Merz will be the Union chancellor candidate, he's failed to impress, and the CDU polls better without him. He's even behind Scholz in the best Chancellor polling.
Re Iowa. Haley will take a good second place, win South Carolina and then first again in New Hampshire. From then it will be a shoe in. When she is President will she pardon Trump???
I wonder how Trump would do as an independent against Biden and Haley.
He can't. Having filed for the Republican primaries he can't now run as an independent if he flunks the nomination.
Is that so? I never knew that.
Sounds like the kind of restriction on an individual's liberty I would not expect from the USA.
You're right, the USA is famous for its liberty.
It wasn't the last major nation to abolish slavery, for example.*
*Depending on your view of the Empire of Brazil.
You know what I mean. Whatever the grubby reality, especially as relates to race, they tend to have more emphasis than us on permitting things like speech, and a lot more focus on election rules. Something which stops you standing at all is oddly disproportionate.
Re Iowa. Haley will take a good second place, win South Carolina and then first again in New Hampshire. From then it will be a shoe in. When she is President will she pardon Trump???
I wonder how Trump would do as an independent against Biden and Haley.
He can't. Having filed for the Republican primaries he can't now run as an independent if he flunks the nomination.
Incorrect.
Note that in 1980, then Congressman John Anderson (R-Illinois) filed and ran as a Republican in a plethora of Republican primaries AND caucuses.
Then after losing the GOP nomination to Ronald Reagan, Anderson ran as an Independent for President, and was on the ballot in all 50 states plus District of Columbia.
Re Iowa. Haley will take a good second place, win South Carolina and then first again in New Hampshire. From then it will be a shoe in. When she is President will she pardon Trump???
I wonder how Trump would do as an independent against Biden and Haley.
He can't. Having filed for the Republican primaries he can't now run as an independent if he flunks the nomination.
Is that so? I never knew that.
Sore loser laws.
Six states have them officially, including Texas.
Several others have filings for the primaries and the nominations at the same time so you have to declare your party affiliation and can't change it.
Finally, several states have the power to informally refuse him nomination. Most of them are Republican and if he can't run in them it wouldn't actually even be much good to his hurt feelings running.
Edit - there's quite an interesting article on it here from the Seattle Times:
From this source: "The laws aren’t always clear on whether they apply to presidential candidates."
You can say that again!
The article does mention John Anderson. And note that "getting on the ballot would be a massive undertaking, and Republican officials like secretaries of state and attorneys general wouldn’t be inclined to give Trump the benefit of the doubt."
Absolutely. However, this did NOT stop John Anderson in 1980, not hardly.
BTW (also FYI) your's truly was one of the volunteers who helped Anderson get on the ballot in the Great State of Louisiana. An effort conducted on a shoestring, and which encountered some disinclination to assist from some local county election officials.
However, as DJT found out to his chagrin, most election officials, even pro-Trump Republicans, are also inclined to do their job even when push comes to shove.
For maximum LOL and political fury, not to mention work for lawyers, how about Trump wins the popular vote next year but loses the electoral vote.
A Dem President you say ?
But wait, this then comes into play:
The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (NPVIC) is an agreement among a group of U.S. states and the District of Columbia to award all their electoral votes to whichever presidential ticket wins the overall popular vote in the 50 states and the District of Columbia. The compact is designed to ensure that the candidate who receives the most votes nationwide is elected president, and it would come into effect only when it would guarantee that outcome.[2][3] Introduced in 2006, as of August 2023 it has been adopted by sixteen states and the District of Columbia. These jurisdictions have 205 electoral votes, which is 38% of the Electoral College and 76% of the 270 votes needed to give the compact legal force.
The amount of mind changing on how elections should be decided would be hilarious.
Why would come into play? They don't have enough states for it to come into effect.
Not legally - though I imagine lawyers would get involved.
But it would morally.
That would be the LOL part as states which have loudly declared that the national vote should be the deciding factor now change their mind. And vice versa.
And what would happen if GOP states adopted the convention after the result but before the electoral votes had been counted - so giving enough states for it to come into effect ?
Who knows but lots of sound and fury and lawyers getting richer.
Why would they change their minds, assuming their opinion isn't going to actually retroactively change who wins the election?
I think the electoral college system is very stupid, and should be replaced by just saying the winner is the person who gets most votes. My opinion won't change if the current system has the fortunate result of keeping Trump out this time. Sympathy for disgruntled Trump voters will be somewhat tempered by the fact that Trump was the beneficiary in 2016.
Trump himself of course did change his mind on the electoral college, bitterly complaining about how unfair and undemocratic it was in 2012 (before the election) when it looked like Obama might lose the national vote but win in the electoral college.
The Electoral College system was, I believe, designed to stop one or two very heavily populated states out-voting the rest, thus ensuring that whoever was elected President had support across the country. I doubt that the Founding Fathers envisioned the polarisation which has now taken place, and which is concurrent with a potential dictatorship.
No, it was designed to try and insulate the presidency from the people. If the intent had been to stop the biggest states from dominating, they wouldn't have weighted it as it is, on a near-proportional basis (yes, small states do get a slightly bigger say pro rata but barely). That the first six presidents all came from either Virginia or Massachusetts tells its own story. Indeed, allowing states to consolidate a block vote is the definition of big state power - more so than a popular vote, unless voters voted *as* a state (which they didn't, though clearly there was the potential for North and South to vote as Sections).
That said, the rapid development of factions and parties meant that the Electoral College was simply filled with proxies for the candidates so the popular vote thing - albeit on a state-by-state level - played out anyway.
Thanks; all adds to one’s knowledge.
I hesitated to comment on this as I'm sure others here know way more than me. And it seems like a bit of a complicated issue. One version of why it exists emphasises the slavery angle:
"Standard civics-class accounts of the Electoral College rarely mention the real demon dooming direct national election in 1787 and 1803: slavery.
At the Philadelphia convention, the visionary Pennsylvanian James Wilson proposed direct national election of the president. But the savvy Virginian James Madison responded that such a system would prove unacceptable to the South: “The right of suffrage was much more diffusive [i.e., extensive] in the Northern than the Southern States; and the latter could have no influence in the election on the score of Negroes.” In other words, in a direct election system, the North would outnumber the South, whose many slaves (more than half a million in all) of course could not vote. But the Electoral College—a prototype of which Madison proposed in this same speech—instead let each southern state count its slaves, albeit with a two-fifths discount, in computing its share of the overall count."
Given the sturm und drang for Brit bookies and punters resulting from messy aftermath of 2012 Iowa Republican precinct caucuses, would have expected "The Web's Premier Resource for Political Betting" to pay a BIT more attention to the ACTUAL RULES governing the caucuses and their results.
Re Iowa. Haley will take a good second place, win South Carolina and then first again in New Hampshire. From then it will be a shoe in. When she is President will she pardon Trump???
I wonder how Trump would do as an independent against Biden and Haley.
He can't. Having filed for the Republican primaries he can't now run as an independent if he flunks the nomination.
Is that so? I never knew that.
Sounds like the kind of restriction on an individual's liberty I would not expect from the USA.
You're right, the USA is famous for its liberty.
It wasn't the last major nation to abolish slavery, for example.*
Re Iowa. Haley will take a good second place, win South Carolina and then first again in New Hampshire. From then it will be a shoe in. When she is President will she pardon Trump???
I wonder how Trump would do as an independent against Biden and Haley.
He can't. Having filed for the Republican primaries he can't now run as an independent if he flunks the nomination.
Is that so? I never knew that.
Sore loser laws.
Six states have them officially, including Texas.
Several others have filings for the primaries and the nominations at the same time so you have to declare your party affiliation and can't change it.
Finally, several states have the power to informally refuse him nomination. Most of them are Republican and if he can't run in them it wouldn't actually even be much good to his hurt feelings running.
Edit - there's quite an interesting article on it here from the Seattle Times:
From this source: "The laws aren’t always clear on whether they apply to presidential candidates."
You can say that again!
The article does mention John Anderson. And note that "getting on the ballot would be a massive undertaking, and Republican officials like secretaries of state and attorneys general wouldn’t be inclined to give Trump the benefit of the doubt."
Absolutely. However, this did NOT stop John Anderson in 1980, not hardly.
BTW (also FYI) your's truly was one of the volunteers who helped Anderson get on the ballot in the Great State of Louisiana. An effort conducted on a shoestring, and which encountered some disinclination to assist from some local county election officials.
However, as DJT found out to his chagrin, most election officials, even pro-Trump Republicans, are also inclined to do their job even when push comes to shove.
Anderson was over 40 years ago and several were tightened up after Anderson v Celebrezze which is the one you're clearly thinking of.
The possible problem for Trump with sore loser laws is it isn't always as simple as that the sore loser can't run. Sometimes he can run, but not for a different party. Other places he can run, but it has to be for a different party, he can't run as a pure independent.
I think a bigger problem for him, however, is he would just lose. He could do an Anderson and challenge the results, but his lawyers are, shall we say politely, not noted for their legal acumen. Heck, they couldn't even get the New York gagging orders permanently lifted despite Kitchen Cabinet's confident claims and the First Amndement.
And then, of course, he would lose the election anyway.
That said, of course, American law is very capable of springing surprises. Look at Colorado, where we were told the President isn't an officer of the United States but Trump is guilty of sedition and insurrection. The first is questionable and the second should really have been a matter for a jury.
For maximum LOL and political fury, not to mention work for lawyers, how about Trump wins the popular vote next year but loses the electoral vote.
A Dem President you say ?
But wait, this then comes into play:
The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (NPVIC) is an agreement among a group of U.S. states and the District of Columbia to award all their electoral votes to whichever presidential ticket wins the overall popular vote in the 50 states and the District of Columbia. The compact is designed to ensure that the candidate who receives the most votes nationwide is elected president, and it would come into effect only when it would guarantee that outcome.[2][3] Introduced in 2006, as of August 2023 it has been adopted by sixteen states and the District of Columbia. These jurisdictions have 205 electoral votes, which is 38% of the Electoral College and 76% of the 270 votes needed to give the compact legal force.
The amount of mind changing on how elections should be decided would be hilarious.
Why would come into play? They don't have enough states for it to come into effect.
Not legally - though I imagine lawyers would get involved.
But it would morally.
That would be the LOL part as states which have loudly declared that the national vote should be the deciding factor now change their mind. And vice versa.
And what would happen if GOP states adopted the convention after the result but before the electoral votes had been counted - so giving enough states for it to come into effect ?
Who knows but lots of sound and fury and lawyers getting richer.
Why would they change their minds, assuming their opinion isn't going to actually retroactively change who wins the election?
I think the electoral college system is very stupid, and should be replaced by just saying the winner is the person who gets most votes. My opinion won't change if the current system has the fortunate result of keeping Trump out this time. Sympathy for disgruntled Trump voters will be somewhat tempered by the fact that Trump was the beneficiary in 2016.
Trump himself of course did change his mind on the electoral college, bitterly complaining about how unfair and undemocratic it was in 2012 (before the election) when it looked like Obama might lose the national vote but win in the electoral college.
The Electoral College system was, I believe, designed to stop one or two very heavily populated states out-voting the rest, thus ensuring that whoever was elected President had support across the country. I doubt that the Founding Fathers envisioned the polarisation which has now taken place, and which is concurrent with a potential dictatorship.
No, it was designed to try and insulate the presidency from the people. If the intent had been to stop the biggest states from dominating, they wouldn't have weighted it as it is, on a near-proportional basis (yes, small states do get a slightly bigger say pro rata but barely). That the first six presidents all came from either Virginia or Massachusetts tells its own story. Indeed, allowing states to consolidate a block vote is the definition of big state power - more so than a popular vote, unless voters voted *as* a state (which they didn't, though clearly there was the potential for North and South to vote as Sections).
That said, the rapid development of factions and parties meant that the Electoral College was simply filled with proxies for the candidates so the popular vote thing - albeit on a state-by-state level - played out anyway.
Thanks; all adds to one’s knowledge.
I hesitated to comment on this as I'm sure others here know way more than me. And it seems like a bit of a complicated issue. One version of why it exists emphasises the slavery angle:
"Standard civics-class accounts of the Electoral College rarely mention the real demon dooming direct national election in 1787 and 1803: slavery.
At the Philadelphia convention, the visionary Pennsylvanian James Wilson proposed direct national election of the president. But the savvy Virginian James Madison responded that such a system would prove unacceptable to the South: “The right of suffrage was much more diffusive [i.e., extensive] in the Northern than the Southern States; and the latter could have no influence in the election on the score of Negroes.” In other words, in a direct election system, the North would outnumber the South, whose many slaves (more than half a million in all) of course could not vote. But the Electoral College—a prototype of which Madison proposed in this same speech—instead let each southern state count its slaves, albeit with a two-fifths discount, in computing its share of the overall count."
Wyoming, population in 2020 = 576,851, gets 3 electors, or 1 elector per 192,283 people. California, population in 2020 = 39,538,223, gets 54 electors, or 1 elector per 732,189 people.
Re Iowa. Haley will take a good second place, win South Carolina and then first again in New Hampshire. From then it will be a shoe in. When she is President will she pardon Trump???
I wonder how Trump would do as an independent against Biden and Haley.
He can't. Having filed for the Republican primaries he can't now run as an independent if he flunks the nomination.
Is that so? I never knew that.
Sore loser laws.
Six states have them officially, including Texas.
Several others have filings for the primaries and the nominations at the same time so you have to declare your party affiliation and can't change it.
Finally, several states have the power to informally refuse him nomination. Most of them are Republican and if he can't run in them it wouldn't actually even be much good to his hurt feelings running.
Edit - there's quite an interesting article on it here from the Seattle Times:
From this source: "The laws aren’t always clear on whether they apply to presidential candidates."
You can say that again!
The article does mention John Anderson. And note that "getting on the ballot would be a massive undertaking, and Republican officials like secretaries of state and attorneys general wouldn’t be inclined to give Trump the benefit of the doubt."
Absolutely. However, this did NOT stop John Anderson in 1980, not hardly.
BTW (also FYI) your's truly was one of the volunteers who helped Anderson get on the ballot in the Great State of Louisiana. An effort conducted on a shoestring, and which encountered some disinclination to assist from some local county election officials.
However, as DJT found out to his chagrin, most election officials, even pro-Trump Republicans, are also inclined to do their job even when push comes to shove.
Anderson was over 40 years ago and several were tightened up after Anderson v Celebrezze which is the one you're clearly thinking of.
The possible problem for Trump with sore loser laws is it isn't always as simple as that the sore loser can't run. Sometimes he can run, but not for a different party. Other places he can run, but it has to be for a different party, he can't run as a pure independent.
I think a bigger problem for him, however, is he would just lose. He could do an Anderson and challenge the results, but his lawyers are, shall we say politely, not noted for their legal acumen. Heck, they couldn't even get the New York gagging orders permanently lifted despite Kitchen Cabinet's confident claims and the First Amndement.
And then, of course, he would lose the election anyway.
If he's not the GOP nominee (he will be) then his goal would be to ensure the GOP lose.
He can probably do that by his followers just not voting at all, but he could also run in as many states as he can under whatever banner he can (and where he is able to meet the various requirements to register).
Yes he would lose, and we know how much he hates to lose which is a major part of why he is currently so dangerous to democracy, but he would take comfort on the pain he could inflict on the way.
It's why the, say, 20% of the GOP who do not support Trump will mostly still back him, knowing he will hurt them if they do not. It's quite pathetic to see even the one's he already attack line up to kiss his rectum.
It's been reported elsewhere that the Finns, themselves, have concluded that both countries are acting as bad actors.
If Putin consolidates in Ukraine and moves on to the Baltic states - former Soviet republics - then Finland, a former Russian Grand Duchy, would be next on the list. Will the Baltics become the next Balkans?
That I think depends on
a) Putin winning or drawing his war in Ukraine. b) Whether Europe, including Western Europe, can present a credible deterrence, or a clear prospect of a credible deterrence, at the point when he wants to make his move.
Such an attack really would change everything, being the first such attack since NATO was formed. Compared with such a step the rest of the conflicts around are little local difficulties. Any future unpredictable. If Trump were in charge, doubly so as the UK and France would need to check their matches are not damp, the password is written on a slip of paper and they can remember the key safe combination number.
I don't know what France are doing, but very little viewable beyond the end of Rishi Sunak's nose is imo being done in the UK before the Election.
Both UK defence spending, and UK committed support for Ukraine, have been cut in real terms recently, and the latest analsyses have identified gaping holes in future funding for basic programmes.
We'll be lining up firmly behind Poland.
This has to end. We have to tell the fucking pensioners (of which I will soon be one) that the mollycoddling is over. We cannot afford a welfare state as we’ve known it. We need defence spending of 5% to stop everyone being killed
Every NATO state needs defence spending of 5% to fully contain Putin, the UK alone wouldn't be enough
Arming Ukraine to defeat the invasion would significantly cut the likelihood of future wars.
Abandon them, as the US seems to be flirting with, and what you say is fairly inevitable.
It's been reported elsewhere that the Finns, themselves, have concluded that both countries are acting as bad actors.
If Putin consolidates in Ukraine and moves on to the Baltic states - former Soviet republics - then Finland, a former Russian Grand Duchy, would be next on the list. Will the Baltics become the next Balkans?
That I think depends on
a) Putin winning or drawing his war in Ukraine. b) Whether Europe, including Western Europe, can present a credible deterrence, or a clear prospect of a credible deterrence, at the point when he wants to make his move.
Such an attack really would change everything, being the first such attack since NATO was formed. Compared with such a step the rest of the conflicts around are little local difficulties. Any future unpredictable. If Trump were in charge, doubly so as the UK and France would need to check their matches are not damp, the password is written on a slip of paper and they can remember the key safe combination number.
I don't know what France are doing, but very little viewable beyond the end of Rishi Sunak's nose is imo being done in the UK before the Election.
Both UK defence spending, and UK committed support for Ukraine, have been cut in real terms recently, and the latest analsyses have identified gaping holes in future funding for basic programmes.
We'll be lining up firmly behind Poland.
This has to end. We have to tell the fucking pensioners (of which I will soon be one) that the mollycoddling is over. We cannot afford a welfare state as we’ve known it. We need defence spending of 5% to stop everyone being killed
Every NATO state needs defence spending of 5% to fully contain Putin, the UK alone wouldn't be enough
Arming Ukraine to defeat the invasion would significantly cut the likelihood of future wars.
Abandon them, as the US seems to be flirting with, and what you say is fairly inevitable.
That lesson seemed to have been learned when states backed Ukraine in 2022 after ignoring 2014, but in the USA at least they are unlearning it. Even some of the Senate Republicans, generally more reliably pro-Ukraine, are falling into line like the rest of their party.
Re Iowa. Haley will take a good second place, win South Carolina and then first again in New Hampshire. From then it will be a shoe in. When she is President will she pardon Trump???
I wonder how Trump would do as an independent against Biden and Haley.
He can't. Having filed for the Republican primaries he can't now run as an independent if he flunks the nomination.
Is that so? I never knew that.
Sore loser laws.
Six states have them officially, including Texas.
Several others have filings for the primaries and the nominations at the same time so you have to declare your party affiliation and can't change it.
Finally, several states have the power to informally refuse him nomination. Most of them are Republican and if he can't run in them it wouldn't actually even be much good to his hurt feelings running.
Edit - there's quite an interesting article on it here from the Seattle Times:
From this source: "The laws aren’t always clear on whether they apply to presidential candidates."
You can say that again!
The article does mention John Anderson. And note that "getting on the ballot would be a massive undertaking, and Republican officials like secretaries of state and attorneys general wouldn’t be inclined to give Trump the benefit of the doubt."
Absolutely. However, this did NOT stop John Anderson in 1980, not hardly.
BTW (also FYI) your's truly was one of the volunteers who helped Anderson get on the ballot in the Great State of Louisiana. An effort conducted on a shoestring, and which encountered some disinclination to assist from some local county election officials.
However, as DJT found out to his chagrin, most election officials, even pro-Trump Republicans, are also inclined to do their job even when push comes to shove.
Anderson was over 40 years ago and several were tightened up after Anderson v Celebrezze which is the one you're clearly thinking of.
The possible problem for Trump with sore loser laws is it isn't always as simple as that the sore loser can't run. Sometimes he can run, but not for a different party. Other places he can run, but it has to be for a different party, he can't run as a pure independent.
I think a bigger problem for him, however, is he would just lose. He could do an Anderson and challenge the results, but his lawyers are, shall we say politely, not noted for their legal acumen. Heck, they couldn't even get the New York gagging orders permanently lifted despite Kitchen Cabinet's confident claims and the First Amndement.
And then, of course, he would lose the election anyway.
That said, of course, American law is very capable of springing surprises. Look at Colorado, where we were told the President isn't an officer of the United States but Trump is guilty of sedition and insurrection. The first is questionable and the second should really have been a matter for a jury.
The effort to keep Trump off 2024 ballots based on his sedition and insurrectionism, shows (I reckon) the folly of assuming and/or relying on the "sore loser" laws you cite.
Not sure which laws you are referring to re: your saying "several were tightened up after Anderson v Celebrezze which is the one you're clearly thinking of."
Case you cite was in Federal courts, and overturned Ohio state law.
And when it comes to presidential elections (as opposed to nomination process) the Feds have final say IF they chose to say anything.
Didcot Labour We are pleased to announce that Nicky Palmer is the new Chair of the Didcot and Wantage Constitiency Labour Party. Nicky is a former MP who currently lives in Brightwell (no, not that one!)
Didcot Labour We are pleased to announce that Nicky Palmer is the new Chair of the Didcot and Wantage Constitiency Labour Party. Nicky is a former MP who currently lives in Brightwell (no, not that one!)
Re Iowa. Haley will take a good second place, win South Carolina and then first again in New Hampshire. From then it will be a shoe in. When she is President will she pardon Trump???
I wonder how Trump would do as an independent against Biden and Haley.
He can't. Having filed for the Republican primaries he can't now run as an independent if he flunks the nomination.
Is that so? I never knew that.
Sore loser laws.
Six states have them officially, including Texas.
Several others have filings for the primaries and the nominations at the same time so you have to declare your party affiliation and can't change it.
Finally, several states have the power to informally refuse him nomination. Most of them are Republican and if he can't run in them it wouldn't actually even be much good to his hurt feelings running.
Edit - there's quite an interesting article on it here from the Seattle Times:
From this source: "The laws aren’t always clear on whether they apply to presidential candidates."
You can say that again!
The article does mention John Anderson. And note that "getting on the ballot would be a massive undertaking, and Republican officials like secretaries of state and attorneys general wouldn’t be inclined to give Trump the benefit of the doubt."
Absolutely. However, this did NOT stop John Anderson in 1980, not hardly.
BTW (also FYI) your's truly was one of the volunteers who helped Anderson get on the ballot in the Great State of Louisiana. An effort conducted on a shoestring, and which encountered some disinclination to assist from some local county election officials.
However, as DJT found out to his chagrin, most election officials, even pro-Trump Republicans, are also inclined to do their job even when push comes to shove.
Anderson was over 40 years ago and several were tightened up after Anderson v Celebrezze which is the one you're clearly thinking of.
The possible problem for Trump with sore loser laws is it isn't always as simple as that the sore loser can't run. Sometimes he can run, but not for a different party. Other places he can run, but it has to be for a different party, he can't run as a pure independent.
I think a bigger problem for him, however, is he would just lose. He could do an Anderson and challenge the results, but his lawyers are, shall we say politely, not noted for their legal acumen. Heck, they couldn't even get the New York gagging orders permanently lifted despite Kitchen Cabinet's confident claims and the First Amndement.
And then, of course, he would lose the election anyway.
That said, of course, American law is very capable of springing surprises. Look at Colorado, where we were told the President isn't an officer of the United States but Trump is guilty of sedition and insurrection. The first is questionable and the second should really have been a matter for a jury.
If Trump isn't nominee he will probably still have 40%+ of the primary vote and have a plurality of delegates.
He wouldn't care about whether he won or not, he would just want to destroy the GOP in the Presidential election and ensure he retained his base (even from jail) in as many states as he could get on the ballot in
It's been reported elsewhere that the Finns, themselves, have concluded that both countries are acting as bad actors.
If Putin consolidates in Ukraine and moves on to the Baltic states - former Soviet republics - then Finland, a former Russian Grand Duchy, would be next on the list. Will the Baltics become the next Balkans?
That I think depends on
a) Putin winning or drawing his war in Ukraine. b) Whether Europe, including Western Europe, can present a credible deterrence, or a clear prospect of a credible deterrence, at the point when he wants to make his move.
Such an attack really would change everything, being the first such attack since NATO was formed. Compared with such a step the rest of the conflicts around are little local difficulties. Any future unpredictable. If Trump were in charge, doubly so as the UK and France would need to check their matches are not damp, the password is written on a slip of paper and they can remember the key safe combination number.
I don't know what France are doing, but very little viewable beyond the end of Rishi Sunak's nose is imo being done in the UK before the Election.
Both UK defence spending, and UK committed support for Ukraine, have been cut in real terms recently, and the latest analsyses have identified gaping holes in future funding for basic programmes.
We'll be lining up firmly behind Poland.
This has to end. We have to tell the fucking pensioners (of which I will soon be one) that the mollycoddling is over. We cannot afford a welfare state as we’ve known it. We need defence spending of 5% to stop everyone being killed
Every NATO state needs defence spending of 5% to fully contain Putin, the UK alone wouldn't be enough
Arming Ukraine to defeat the invasion would significantly cut the likelihood of future wars.
Abandon them, as the US seems to be flirting with, and what you say is fairly inevitable.
Even without the US the remaining NATO economies combined are comfortably more than the Russian economy, they just need to spend as much on defence as Putin does and send much of that to Ukraine
"Western elites loathe their voters. Their contempt is palpable Politicians can barely hide their true views for long enough to beg for your vote. It’s no wonder populism is surging Janet Daley"
Daley, like all such cheap writers, ignores the fact that governments have to manage the fact that the people want more than one thing at a time and that sometimes these wants come into conflict, and sometimes they are impossible. This is called politics or statesmanship.
The thing I find odd about these takes from the right is that while there may be some truth in the idea politicians find the views of the electorate troublesome when they turn against them, they only tend to see it one way.
According to current polling, if you're under 50 you're as or more likely to believe the moon landings are faked as vote for the Conservative Party, with Reform barely a blip either. And the right seem to do little but moan about it and at people rather than do anything that might even begin to address it.
Those are the voters that drive the economy and have the biggest stake in the country working well, as well as the future. Given that, what does that say about the right and their contempt for voters and people of working age? Many of whom used to be 'their' voters. as until relatively recently, those from 30 and above used to be a relatively even split and generally reflected the broader political picture.
It's been reported elsewhere that the Finns, themselves, have concluded that both countries are acting as bad actors.
If Putin consolidates in Ukraine and moves on to the Baltic states - former Soviet republics - then Finland, a former Russian Grand Duchy, would be next on the list. Will the Baltics become the next Balkans?
That I think depends on
a) Putin winning or drawing his war in Ukraine. b) Whether Europe, including Western Europe, can present a credible deterrence, or a clear prospect of a credible deterrence, at the point when he wants to make his move.
Such an attack really would change everything, being the first such attack since NATO was formed. Compared with such a step the rest of the conflicts around are little local difficulties. Any future unpredictable. If Trump were in charge, doubly so as the UK and France would need to check their matches are not damp, the password is written on a slip of paper and they can remember the key safe combination number.
I don't know what France are doing, but very little viewable beyond the end of Rishi Sunak's nose is imo being done in the UK before the Election.
Both UK defence spending, and UK committed support for Ukraine, have been cut in real terms recently, and the latest analsyses have identified gaping holes in future funding for basic programmes.
We'll be lining up firmly behind Poland.
This has to end. We have to tell the fucking pensioners (of which I will soon be one) that the mollycoddling is over. We cannot afford a welfare state as we’ve known it. We need defence spending of 5% to stop everyone being killed
Every NATO state needs defence spending of 5% to fully contain Putin, the UK alone wouldn't be enough
Arming Ukraine to defeat the invasion would significantly cut the likelihood of future wars.
Abandon them, as the US seems to be flirting with, and what you say is fairly inevitable.
That lesson seemed to have been learned when states backed Ukraine in 2022 after ignoring 2014, but in the USA at least they are unlearning it. Even some of the Senate Republicans, generally more reliably pro-Ukraine, are falling into line like the rest of their party.
The main of effect of abandoning Ukraine will be breakouts from the NPT. Poland will go at least quasi-nuclear - think Japan. Ukraine might well go overt - including a test.
There might well be an Eastern European shared project, among like minded states.
They ousted the main conservative party after 16 years in power at a Federal election just 2 years ago.
Does not bode that well for Starmer, albeit most likely on current polls it would be another CDU and SPD coalition given the AfD remain beyond the pale in Germany despite polling over 20% in most polls
Given that Starmer isn't the chancellor of the exchequer and deputy prime minister in the current government the situation isn't very similar.
Also the SPD were polling in the teens at the equivalent point in the last German parliament.
Union+Greens is a bit more likely than Union+SPD, although it's possible neither would actually get a majority on current polling.
The only combination which would have a majority on current polling is Union + AfD but even Merz, despite being right of Merkel, has ruled that out at Federal level
Maybe you are forgetting that parties that don't get 5% don't get into the Bundestag? In some of the latest polls that would mean only Union, AfD, Greens and SPD getting MPs.
Union + Greens or Union + SPD would be majorities in those polls.
Even where FDP just scrapes in Union + Greens or Union + SPD usually just gets a majority (or of course Union + any other 2 would be viable).
Far from certain that Merz will be the Union chancellor candidate, he's failed to impress, and the CDU polls better without him. He's even behind Scholz in the best Chancellor polling.
German CDU members selected Merz and wanted a shift to the right after Merkel, about 30-32% now back the CDU on the latest polls which is a significant increase from the 24% the Union got in 2021 and puts the Union clearly ahead. Merz would be chancellor whatever the coalition arithmetic on current polls
As an aside, it’s absolutely hilarious that Elon Musk built an entire LLM based AI to counter the perceived wokeness of OpenAI’s ChatGPT & it’s turned out to as woke as it is possible to be:
(It is possible that Grok’s default “rebellious” mode is riffing on the alt-rightish nature of it’s interlocutors in these exchanges - it has access to the user’s Xitter feed - & is feeding them responses that are designed to wind them up. That might be an even funnier outcome though.)
When Musk and his like solve the problem of portable CD players skipping when out running I’ll pay attention. 30 years and they can’t even fix that. I think we’re safe from “Al” for a while yet!
It's been reported elsewhere that the Finns, themselves, have concluded that both countries are acting as bad actors.
If Putin consolidates in Ukraine and moves on to the Baltic states - former Soviet republics - then Finland, a former Russian Grand Duchy, would be next on the list. Will the Baltics become the next Balkans?
That I think depends on
a) Putin winning or drawing his war in Ukraine. b) Whether Europe, including Western Europe, can present a credible deterrence, or a clear prospect of a credible deterrence, at the point when he wants to make his move.
Such an attack really would change everything, being the first such attack since NATO was formed. Compared with such a step the rest of the conflicts around are little local difficulties. Any future unpredictable. If Trump were in charge, doubly so as the UK and France would need to check their matches are not damp, the password is written on a slip of paper and they can remember the key safe combination number.
I don't know what France are doing, but very little viewable beyond the end of Rishi Sunak's nose is imo being done in the UK before the Election.
Both UK defence spending, and UK committed support for Ukraine, have been cut in real terms recently, and the latest analsyses have identified gaping holes in future funding for basic programmes.
We'll be lining up firmly behind Poland.
This has to end. We have to tell the fucking pensioners (of which I will soon be one) that the mollycoddling is over. We cannot afford a welfare state as we’ve known it. We need defence spending of 5% to stop everyone being killed
Every NATO state needs defence spending of 5% to fully contain Putin, the UK alone wouldn't be enough
Arming Ukraine to defeat the invasion would significantly cut the likelihood of future wars.
Abandon them, as the US seems to be flirting with, and what you say is fairly inevitable.
Even without the US the remaining NATO economies combined are comfortably more than the Russian economy, they just need to spend as much on defence as Putin does and send much of that to Ukraine
While that's true, Europe does not have the capacity to sufficiently supply Ukraine in the next six months to a year. And a Ukrainian defeat would likely divide Europe between those who would stand up to Putin and those who would seek (an illusory) compromise with him.
The fate of Putin's invasion depends largely on the Republicans in Congress.
As an aside, it’s absolutely hilarious that Elon Musk built an entire LLM based AI to counter the perceived wokeness of OpenAI’s ChatGPT & it’s turned out to as woke as it is possible to be:
(It is possible that Grok’s default “rebellious” mode is riffing on the alt-rightish nature of it’s interlocutors in these exchanges - it has access to the user’s Xitter feed - & is feeding them responses that are designed to wind them up. That might be an even funnier outcome though.)
When Musk and his like solve the problem of portable CD players skipping when out running I’ll pay attention. 30 years and they can’t even fix that. I think we’re safe from “Al” for a while yet!
"Western elites loathe their voters. Their contempt is palpable Politicians can barely hide their true views for long enough to beg for your vote. It’s no wonder populism is surging Janet Daley"
Daley, like all such cheap writers, ignores the fact that governments have to manage the fact that the people want more than one thing at a time and that sometimes these wants come into conflict, and sometimes they are impossible. This is called politics or statesmanship.
The thing I find odd about these takes from the right is that while there may be some truth in the idea politicians find the views of the electorate troublesome when they turn against them, they only tend to see it one way.
According to current polling, if you're under 50 you're as or more likely to believe the moon landings are faked as vote for the Conservative Party, with Reform barely a blip either. And the right seem to do little but moan about it and at people rather than do anything that might even begin to address it.
Those are the voters that drive the economy and have the biggest stake in the country working well, as well as the future. Given that, what does that say about the right and their contempt for voters and people of working age? Many of whom used to be 'their' voters. as until relatively recently, those from 30 and above used to be a relatively even split and generally reflected the broader political picture.
At the moment it is just possible, with effort, to discern what a centre left politics might look like under the present Labour party, though that could easily crumble under the twin pressures of encounter with reality on the one hand, and the expectations of the left on the other.
I think Starmer will try to deal with this by firstly winning power by default, saying as little as possible, and then a hefty dose of slightly grown up talk of how the future might shape up.
What the underlying core principles are of the Tories now, I have no idea. Ask how an imaginary truly statesmanlike Tory cabinet would go from here and what principles it would apply, and my imagination fails.
As an aside, it’s absolutely hilarious that Elon Musk built an entire LLM based AI to counter the perceived wokeness of OpenAI’s ChatGPT & it’s turned out to as woke as it is possible to be:
(It is possible that Grok’s default “rebellious” mode is riffing on the alt-rightish nature of it’s interlocutors in these exchanges - it has access to the user’s Xitter feed - & is feeding them responses that are designed to wind them up. That might be an even funnier outcome though.)
When Musk and his like solve the problem of portable CD players skipping when out running I’ll pay attention. 30 years and they can’t even fix that. I think we’re safe from “Al” for a while yet!
Surely the solution to that is to get an MP3 player? And I'm sorry I called you Surely.
It's been reported elsewhere that the Finns, themselves, have concluded that both countries are acting as bad actors.
If Putin consolidates in Ukraine and moves on to the Baltic states - former Soviet republics - then Finland, a former Russian Grand Duchy, would be next on the list. Will the Baltics become the next Balkans?
That I think depends on
a) Putin winning or drawing his war in Ukraine. b) Whether Europe, including Western Europe, can present a credible deterrence, or a clear prospect of a credible deterrence, at the point when he wants to make his move.
Such an attack really would change everything, being the first such attack since NATO was formed. Compared with such a step the rest of the conflicts around are little local difficulties. Any future unpredictable. If Trump were in charge, doubly so as the UK and France would need to check their matches are not damp, the password is written on a slip of paper and they can remember the key safe combination number.
I don't know what France are doing, but very little viewable beyond the end of Rishi Sunak's nose is imo being done in the UK before the Election.
Both UK defence spending, and UK committed support for Ukraine, have been cut in real terms recently, and the latest analsyses have identified gaping holes in future funding for basic programmes.
We'll be lining up firmly behind Poland.
This has to end. We have to tell the fucking pensioners (of which I will soon be one) that the mollycoddling is over. We cannot afford a welfare state as we’ve known it. We need defence spending of 5% to stop everyone being killed
Every NATO state needs defence spending of 5% to fully contain Putin, the UK alone wouldn't be enough
Arming Ukraine to defeat the invasion would significantly cut the likelihood of future wars.
Abandon them, as the US seems to be flirting with, and what you say is fairly inevitable.
Even without the US the remaining NATO economies combined are comfortably more than the Russian economy, they just need to spend as much on defence as Putin does and send much of that to Ukraine
While that's true, Europe does not have the capacity to sufficiently supply Ukraine in the next six months to a year. And a Ukrainian defeat would likely divide Europe between those who would stand up to Putin and those who would seek (an illusory) compromise with him.
The fate of Putin's invasion depends largely on the Republicans in Congress.
Look, Putin is not going to capture Kyiv even if the US didn't send Ukraine another cent.
Putin might hold what he has got and yes it would be preferable to drive him out of the country completely but it would just end up in deadlock not a Putin complete victory.
However the message remains Europe needs to fund more of its own defence and defend the borders of its own continent, not rely on whoever controls the US White House and Congress all the time
They ousted the main conservative party after 16 years in power at a Federal election just 2 years ago.
Does not bode that well for Starmer, albeit most likely on current polls it would be another CDU and SPD coalition given the AfD remain beyond the pale in Germany despite polling over 20% in most polls
Given that Starmer isn't the chancellor of the exchequer and deputy prime minister in the current government the situation isn't very similar.
Also the SPD were polling in the teens at the equivalent point in the last German parliament.
Union+Greens is a bit more likely than Union+SPD, although it's possible neither would actually get a majority on current polling.
The only combination which would have a majority on current polling is Union + AfD but even Merz, despite being right of Merkel, has ruled that out at Federal level
Maybe you are forgetting that parties that don't get 5% don't get into the Bundestag? In some of the latest polls that would mean only Union, AfD, Greens and SPD getting MPs.
Union + Greens or Union + SPD would be majorities in those polls.
Even where FDP just scrapes in Union + Greens or Union + SPD usually just gets a majority (or of course Union + any other 2 would be viable).
Far from certain that Merz will be the Union chancellor candidate, he's failed to impress, and the CDU polls better without him. He's even behind Scholz in the best Chancellor polling.
German CDU members selected Merz and wanted a shift to the right after Merkel, about 30-32% now back the CDU on the latest polls which is a significant increase from the 24% the Union got in 2021 and puts the Union clearly ahead. Merz would be chancellor whatever the coalition arithmetic on current polls
I'm not sure you understand how the German system works. The party leader of the leading coalition partner does not necessarily become Chancellor. For example: the current Chancellor. Neither was Merkel CDU party leader in her last years as Chancellor. I think it's quite likely that Merz won't be the Union Chancellor-candidate at the next election, even if he remains CDU leader, though of course it's possible he will be.
As for the polling, like I said the CDU polls better with alternatives named as potential chancellors, and worse when Merz is named as potential Chancellor. I don't know if you were trying to imply that the improvement in the CDU's polling is because of Merz. It's more that the CDU is the main opposition with an unpopular government.
They ousted the main conservative party after 16 years in power at a Federal election just 2 years ago.
Does not bode that well for Starmer, albeit most likely on current polls it would be another CDU and SPD coalition given the AfD remain beyond the pale in Germany despite polling over 20% in most polls
Given that Starmer isn't the chancellor of the exchequer and deputy prime minister in the current government the situation isn't very similar.
Also the SPD were polling in the teens at the equivalent point in the last German parliament.
Union+Greens is a bit more likely than Union+SPD, although it's possible neither would actually get a majority on current polling.
The only combination which would have a majority on current polling is Union + AfD but even Merz, despite being right of Merkel, has ruled that out at Federal level
Maybe you are forgetting that parties that don't get 5% don't get into the Bundestag? In some of the latest polls that would mean only Union, AfD, Greens and SPD getting MPs.
Union + Greens or Union + SPD would be majorities in those polls.
Even where FDP just scrapes in Union + Greens or Union + SPD usually just gets a majority (or of course Union + any other 2 would be viable).
Far from certain that Merz will be the Union chancellor candidate, he's failed to impress, and the CDU polls better without him. He's even behind Scholz in the best Chancellor polling.
German CDU members selected Merz and wanted a shift to the right after Merkel, about 30-32% now back the CDU on the latest polls which is a significant increase from the 24% the Union got in 2021 and puts the Union clearly ahead. Merz would be chancellor whatever the coalition arithmetic on current polls
I'm not sure you understand how the German system works. The party leader of the leading coalition partner does not necessarily become Chancellor. For example: the current Chancellor. Neither was Merkel CDU party leader in her last years as Chancellor. I think it's quite likely that Merz won't be the Union Chancellor-candidate at the next election, even if he remains CDU leader, though of course it's possible he will be.
As for the polling, like I said the CDU polls better with alternatives named as potential chancellors, and worse when Merz is named as potential Chancellor. I don't know if you were trying to imply that the improvement in the CDU's polling is because of Merz. It's more that the CDU is the main opposition with an unpopular government.
The SPD have most seats in the German Parliament and Scholz is Chancellor. Merkel was also party leader of the CDU when she became Chancellor.
The CDU members elect their leader now and their membership voted for and back Merz, the CSU is the other Union partner who will select the Union chancellor candidate and even more rightwing than the CDU so the Union chancellor candidate certainly ain't going to be any more moderate than Merz is.
Who cares whether some alternative centrist might poll better than Merz when the CDU is going to win anyway on current polls. Most UK polls pre 1979 had Heath polling better than Thatcher but they were irrelevant as Thatcher won anyway
As an aside, it’s absolutely hilarious that Elon Musk built an entire LLM based AI to counter the perceived wokeness of OpenAI’s ChatGPT & it’s turned out to as woke as it is possible to be:
(It is possible that Grok’s default “rebellious” mode is riffing on the alt-rightish nature of it’s interlocutors in these exchanges - it has access to the user’s Xitter feed - & is feeding them responses that are designed to wind them up. That might be an even funnier outcome though.)
When Musk and his like solve the problem of portable CD players skipping when out running I’ll pay attention. 30 years and they can’t even fix that. I think we’re safe from “Al” for a while yet!
As an aside, it’s absolutely hilarious that Elon Musk built an entire LLM based AI to counter the perceived wokeness of OpenAI’s ChatGPT & it’s turned out to as woke as it is possible to be:
(It is possible that Grok’s default “rebellious” mode is riffing on the alt-rightish nature of it’s interlocutors in these exchanges - it has access to the user’s Xitter feed - & is feeding them responses that are designed to wind them up. That might be an even funnier outcome though.)
When Musk and his like solve the problem of portable CD players skipping when out running I’ll pay attention. 30 years and they can’t even fix that. I think we’re safe from “Al” for a while yet!
You're going to be amazed when you try this:
They don't make iPods anymore.
I realised I don't own any devices that can play a CD now I sold my old car.
Re Iowa. Haley will take a good second place, win South Carolina and then first again in New Hampshire. From then it will be a shoe in. When she is President will she pardon Trump???
I wonder how Trump would do as an independent against Biden and Haley.
One up on Perot and actually win a few states? Surely beat Haley in some.
Firstly, it won't and can't happen unless Trump goes independent before the vast majority of primaries. Filing deadlines and sore-loser candidacies etc.
And secondly, why would Trump carry any state in the general election if he lost the primaries and nomination?
The only way he loses the nomination - for which he's currently polling 60%+, by the way, against peanuts for the rest - is if his campaign completely implodes. And if that happens, where then is his support in November?
Re Iowa. Haley will take a good second place, win South Carolina and then first again in New Hampshire. From then it will be a shoe in. When she is President will she pardon Trump???
I wonder how Trump would do as an independent against Biden and Haley.
One up on Perot and actually win a few states? Surely beat Haley in some.
Firstly, it won't and can't happen unless Trump goes independent before the vast majority of primaries. Filing deadlines and sore-loser candidacies etc.
And secondly, why would Trump carry any state in the general election if he lost the primaries and nomination?
The only way he loses the nomination - for which he's currently polling 60%+, by the way, against peanuts for the rest - is if his campaign completely implodes. And if that happens, where then is his support in November?
It is perfectly possible Trump gets 40% of delegates or so after a criminal conviction but is denied the nomination as other delegates combine to pick an alternative.
That would still give him about 20% of the US vote and in states without sore loser rules where he got on the ballot and won by large margins even in 2020 eg West Virginia, he certainly might win those states as a 3rd party candidate
Let's not bury the lede in yesterday's DC Circuit decision on the gag order: its statement about the trial date: "IN THIS CASE, THE GENERAL ELECTION IS ALMOST A YEAR AWAY, AND WILL LONG POSTDATE THE TRIAL IN THIS CASE.” https://twitter.com/AWeissmann_/status/1733549968768516147
As an aside, it’s absolutely hilarious that Elon Musk built an entire LLM based AI to counter the perceived wokeness of OpenAI’s ChatGPT & it’s turned out to as woke as it is possible to be:
(It is possible that Grok’s default “rebellious” mode is riffing on the alt-rightish nature of it’s interlocutors in these exchanges - it has access to the user’s Xitter feed - & is feeding them responses that are designed to wind them up. That might be an even funnier outcome though.)
When Musk and his like solve the problem of portable CD players skipping when out running I’ll pay attention. 30 years and they can’t even fix that. I think we’re safe from “Al” for a while yet!
As an aside, it’s absolutely hilarious that Elon Musk built an entire LLM based AI to counter the perceived wokeness of OpenAI’s ChatGPT & it’s turned out to as woke as it is possible to be:
(It is possible that Grok’s default “rebellious” mode is riffing on the alt-rightish nature of it’s interlocutors in these exchanges - it has access to the user’s Xitter feed - & is feeding them responses that are designed to wind them up. That might be an even funnier outcome though.)
When Musk and his like solve the problem of portable CD players skipping when out running I’ll pay attention. 30 years and they can’t even fix that. I think we’re safe from “Al” for a while yet!
You're going to be amazed when you try this:
They don't make iPods anymore.
I realised I don't own any devices that can play a CD now I sold my old car.
Someone should make an updated version of this Not The Nine O'clock News Sketch
As an aside, it’s absolutely hilarious that Elon Musk built an entire LLM based AI to counter the perceived wokeness of OpenAI’s ChatGPT & it’s turned out to as woke as it is possible to be:
(It is possible that Grok’s default “rebellious” mode is riffing on the alt-rightish nature of it’s interlocutors in these exchanges - it has access to the user’s Xitter feed - & is feeding them responses that are designed to wind them up. That might be an even funnier outcome though.)
When Musk and his like solve the problem of portable CD players skipping when out running I’ll pay attention. 30 years and they can’t even fix that. I think we’re safe from “Al” for a while yet!
As an aside, it’s absolutely hilarious that Elon Musk built an entire LLM based AI to counter the perceived wokeness of OpenAI’s ChatGPT & it’s turned out to as woke as it is possible to be:
(It is possible that Grok’s default “rebellious” mode is riffing on the alt-rightish nature of it’s interlocutors in these exchanges - it has access to the user’s Xitter feed - & is feeding them responses that are designed to wind them up. That might be an even funnier outcome though.)
When Musk and his like solve the problem of portable CD players skipping when out running I’ll pay attention. 30 years and they can’t even fix that. I think we’re safe from “Al” for a while yet!
Let's not bury the lede in yesterday's DC Circuit decision on the gag order: its statement about the trial date: "IN THIS CASE, THE GENERAL ELECTION IS ALMOST A YEAR AWAY, AND WILL LONG POSTDATE THE TRIAL IN THIS CASE.” https://twitter.com/AWeissmann_/status/1733549968768516147
By the election, Trump will have lost his New York business empire, been subjct to massive punitive fines, then been found guilty of criminal charges that deprive him of his liberty for 20 years or more.
Oh, and been struck from the ballot as a result of the 14th Amendment - as upheld by the Supreme Court.
“One of the scariest fifteen minutes of my life was when I consulted Dr Google after peeing red. It listed fifteen possible causes, fourteen of which you definitely didn't want it to be.
The fifteenth suggested I may have eaten a lot of beetroot.”
lol
I’ve been there also. In an even more ludicrous way
It all got sorted when a local Thai lady pharmacist looked at me and said “it come out orange?” And I sheepishly replied “yes it come out orange” and then she chuckled and gave me a pill which fixed everything up so it no longer come out orange
I had my first ever beetroot drink in the hospital the day our second son was born. Quite a stressful day anyway and when I got home and peed blood red it almost finished me off
Incidentally, who was the last US President to be actually defeated - as opposed to, not running - to seek and win renomination?
I keep coming up with Grover Cleveland in 1892 - is there anyone more recent than that? I know Hoover made two attempts but was unsuccessful.
Correct.
Note that Grover Cleveland's second term as POTUS was LESS than a success.
More like wretched failure. And by 1896, he and his administration were repudiated by most of his own Democratic Party.
Believe this was one reason why such retreds have NOT gotten much traction running for president ever since.
At least until 2024?
Indeed. There are a few other cases worth noting.
Theodore Roosevelt opted not to contest 1908 under the two-term convention but stood again in 1912, losing the nomination (despite sweeping such primaries as there were), then running a sufficiently strong third-party campaign to finish second.
Hoover, as noted above, sought the Republican nomination after losing re-election in 1932 but was unsuccessful.
Adlai Stevenson in 1952/56 and Richard Nixon in 1960/68 are the last candidates to be renominated after losing (Nixon, of course, won in 1968 and would go on to be nominated, and win, again in 1972). William Jennings Bryan is the only person to be nominated a third time after losing both previous elections (and would lose the third too).
If the candidates are Biden/Trump again, it will be the first time since Eisenhower/Stevenson in 1952/56 that the same pair of candidates fight two successive elections. The two other examples since the Dem/Rep party system developed are Cleveland/Harrison in 1888/92 and McKinley/Bryan in 1896/1900.
If it is Trump/Biden, their combined age of 160 will be by far the highest, and the third election in a row that a new record has been set. Prior to 2016, the highest combined age was just 130 (Reagan/Mondale, 1984; also Taylor/Cass, 1848, in the Whig/Democrat era).
Let's not bury the lede in yesterday's DC Circuit decision on the gag order: its statement about the trial date: "IN THIS CASE, THE GENERAL ELECTION IS ALMOST A YEAR AWAY, AND WILL LONG POSTDATE THE TRIAL IN THIS CASE.” https://twitter.com/AWeissmann_/status/1733549968768516147
By the election, Trump will have lost his New York business empire, been subjct to massive punitive fines, then been found guilty of criminal charges that deprive him of his liberty for 20 years or more.
Oh, and been struck from the ballot as a result of the 14th Amendment - as upheld by the Supreme Court.
I am fairly certain there was a handball by a Villa player in the Havertz disallowed goal incident.
I thought that at first. Comms didn’t seem to mention it. apparently VAR didn’t check it
Rules are rules. If the Goalscorer handles the ball, however accidentally, it’s disallowed, but for anyone who’s been watching football 30-40 years it seems like madness to disallow Havertz’s goal there - the Villa player, Cash (@anabobazina wouldn’t like him) played it onto his hand from about 6 inches away
As an aside, it’s absolutely hilarious that Elon Musk built an entire LLM based AI to counter the perceived wokeness of OpenAI’s ChatGPT & it’s turned out to as woke as it is possible to be:
(It is possible that Grok’s default “rebellious” mode is riffing on the alt-rightish nature of it’s interlocutors in these exchanges - it has access to the user’s Xitter feed - & is feeding them responses that are designed to wind them up. That might be an even funnier outcome though.)
When Musk and his like solve the problem of portable CD players skipping when out running I’ll pay attention. 30 years and they can’t even fix that. I think we’re safe from “Al” for a while yet!
You're going to be amazed when you try this:
They don't make iPods anymore.
I realised I don't own any devices that can play a CD now I sold my old car.
Incidentally, who was the last US President to be actually defeated - as opposed to, not running - to seek and win renomination?
I keep coming up with Grover Cleveland in 1892 - is there anyone more recent than that? I know Hoover made two attempts but was unsuccessful.
Correct.
Note that Grover Cleveland's second term as POTUS was LESS than a success.
More like wretched failure. And by 1896, he and his administration were repudiated by most of his own Democratic Party.
Believe this was one reason why such retreds have NOT gotten much traction running for president ever since.
At least until 2024?
Indeed. There are a few other cases worth noting.
Theodore Roosevelt opted not to contest 1908 under the two-term convention but stood again in 1912, losing the nomination (despite sweeping such primaries as there were), then running a sufficiently strong third-party campaign to finish second.
Hoover, as noted above, sought the Republican nomination after losing re-election in 1932 but was unsuccessful.
Adlai Stevenson in 1952/56 and Richard Nixon in 1960/68 are the last candidates to be renominated after losing (Nixon, of course, won in 1968 and would go on to be nominated, and win, again in 1972). William Jennings Bryan is the only person to be nominated a third time after losing both previous elections (and would lose the third too).
If the candidates are Biden/Trump again, it will be the first time since Eisenhower/Stevenson in 1952/56 that the same pair of candidates fight two successive elections. The two other examples since the Dem/Rep party system developed are Cleveland/Harrison in 1888/92 and McKinley/Bryan in 1896/1900. 00 (Reagan/Mondale, 1984; also Taylor/Cass, 1848, in the Whig/Democrat era).
Slight correction: William Jennings Bryan was the only MAJOR party POTUS candidate renominated (and defeated) multiple times after his initial nomination (and defeat).
> Eugene V. Debs was POTUS nominee for Socialist Party in 1900, 1904, 1908, 1912 and 1920; at time of his last hurrah he was serving time in federal prison after being convicted of . . . wait for it . . . sedition due to his opposition to American entry into WW1.
> Norman Thomas was POTUS nominee for Socialist Party in 1932, 1936,1940 and 1944; when asked what he'd do IF he was actually elected, replied, "Demand a recount!"; AND in his youth, he was a paperboy in Marion, Ohio for newspaper published by future POTUS Warren Harding.
As an aside, it’s absolutely hilarious that Elon Musk built an entire LLM based AI to counter the perceived wokeness of OpenAI’s ChatGPT & it’s turned out to as woke as it is possible to be:
(It is possible that Grok’s default “rebellious” mode is riffing on the alt-rightish nature of it’s interlocutors in these exchanges - it has access to the user’s Xitter feed - & is feeding them responses that are designed to wind them up. That might be an even funnier outcome though.)
When Musk and his like solve the problem of portable CD players skipping when out running I’ll pay attention. 30 years and they can’t even fix that. I think we’re safe from “Al” for a while yet!
You're going to be amazed when you try this:
They don't make iPods anymore.
I realised I don't own any devices that can play a CD now I sold my old car.
Incidentally, who was the last US President to be actually defeated - as opposed to, not running - to seek and win renomination?
I keep coming up with Grover Cleveland in 1892 - is there anyone more recent than that? I know Hoover made two attempts but was unsuccessful.
Correct.
Note that Grover Cleveland's second term as POTUS was LESS than a success.
More like wretched failure. And by 1896, he and his administration were repudiated by most of his own Democratic Party.
Believe this was one reason why such retreds have NOT gotten much traction running for president ever since.
At least until 2024?
Indeed. There are a few other cases worth noting.
Theodore Roosevelt opted not to contest 1908 under the two-term convention but stood again in 1912, losing the nomination (despite sweeping such primaries as there were), then running a sufficiently strong third-party campaign to finish second.
Hoover, as noted above, sought the Republican nomination after losing re-election in 1932 but was unsuccessful.
Adlai Stevenson in 1952/56 and Richard Nixon in 1960/68 are the last candidates to be renominated after losing (Nixon, of course, won in 1968 and would go on to be nominated, and win, again in 1972). William Jennings Bryan is the only person to be nominated a third time after losing both previous elections (and would lose the third too).
If the candidates are Biden/Trump again, it will be the first time since Eisenhower/Stevenson in 1952/56 that the same pair of candidates fight two successive elections. The two other examples since the Dem/Rep party system developed are Cleveland/Harrison in 1888/92 and McKinley/Bryan in 1896/1900. 00 (Reagan/Mondale, 1984; also Taylor/Cass, 1848, in the Whig/Democrat era).
Slight correction: William Jennings Bryan was the only MAJOR party POTUS candidate renominated (and defeated) multiple times after his initial nomination (and defeat).
> Eugene V. Debs was POTUS nominee for Socialist Party in 1900, 1904, 1908, 1912 and 1920; at time of his last hurrah he was serving time in federal prison after being convicted of . . . wait for it . . . sedition due to his opposition to American entry into WW1.
> Norman Thomas was POTUS nominee for Socialist Party in 1932, 1936,1940 and 1944; when asked what he'd do IF he was actually elected, replied, "Demand a recount!"; AND in his youth, he was a paperboy in Marion, Ohio for newspaper published by future POTUS Warren Harding.
Yes, sorry, I was meaning major party candidates (which I stretched to include Roosevelt in 1912 given that he sought the Republican nomination, then finished in the top two anyway).
On a related note, Millard Fillmore ran as the Know-Nothing candidate in 1856, four years after stepping down as president (having sought but failing to secure renomination in 1852).
As an aside, it’s absolutely hilarious that Elon Musk built an entire LLM based AI to counter the perceived wokeness of OpenAI’s ChatGPT & it’s turned out to as woke as it is possible to be:
(It is possible that Grok’s default “rebellious” mode is riffing on the alt-rightish nature of it’s interlocutors in these exchanges - it has access to the user’s Xitter feed - & is feeding them responses that are designed to wind them up. That might be an even funnier outcome though.)
When Musk and his like solve the problem of portable CD players skipping when out running I’ll pay attention. 30 years and they can’t even fix that. I think we’re safe from “Al” for a while yet!
You're going to be amazed when you try this:
They don't make iPods anymore.
The ipod was the only product Apple really got right - the only product sufficiently better than its competitors to justify the price tag. I have two and use them most days. Have to buy them reconditioned on ebay now when they wear out. Itunes is a bloody awful bit of software though, and I definitely wouldn't buy music through it.
Ross Matthewman: Wow, the reaction from Arteta and the Arsenal players to losing that match feels really petulant and entitled. Chalk and cheese with how City responded on Wednesday.
Ok, now seen all of Masterchef Professionals. Just an outstanding series and a ridiculously high standard. These 3 chefs surely have great careers ahead of them and a worthy winner to boot.
Incidentally, who was the last US President to be actually defeated - as opposed to, not running - to seek and win renomination?
I keep coming up with Grover Cleveland in 1892 - is there anyone more recent than that? I know Hoover made two attempts but was unsuccessful.
Bush v Clinton in 1992?
I think you've misunderstood the question, which was about a President failing to get re-nomination rather than re-election. Clearly, several (including Bush) have failed to be re-elected, but were re-nominated by their party.
Although I'd note Johnson briefly ran for re-nomination in 1968 - it's just that he pulled out after a disappointing result in New Hampshire, which he only narrowly won. He said it was on the basis of ill-health (and his health was a factor although not the only factor) but arguably he did seek re-nomination.
Incidentally, who was the last US President to be actually defeated - as opposed to, not running - to seek and win renomination?
I keep coming up with Grover Cleveland in 1892 - is there anyone more recent than that? I know Hoover made two attempts but was unsuccessful.
Bush v Clinton in 1992?
I think you've misunderstood the question, which was about a President failing to get re-nomination rather than re-election. Clearly, several (including Bush) have failed to be re-elected, but were re-nominated by their party.
Although I'd note Johnson briefly ran for re-nomination in 1968 - it's just that he pulled out after a disappointing result in New Hampshire, which he only narrowly won. He said it was on the basis of ill-health (and his health was a factor although not the only factor) but arguably he did seek re-nomination.
Incidentally, who was the last US President to be actually defeated - as opposed to, not running - to seek and win renomination?
I keep coming up with Grover Cleveland in 1892 - is there anyone more recent than that? I know Hoover made two attempts but was unsuccessful.
Bush v Clinton in 1992?
I think you've misunderstood the question, which was about a President failing to get re-nomination rather than re-election. Clearly, several (including Bush) have failed to be re-elected, but were re-nominated by their party.
Although I'd note Johnson briefly ran for re-nomination in 1968 - it's just that he pulled out after a disappointing result in New Hampshire, which he only narrowly won. He said it was on the basis of ill-health (and his health was a factor although not the only factor) but arguably he did seek re-nomination.
He hadn't been defeated in an election!
But I don't really know how you define "defeat" in a primary process where candidates many withdrew. I mean, Mike Pence sought the Republican nomination in 2024, and Kamala Harris sought the Democratic one in 2020. They weren't "defeated" in the sense that they withdrew before the first primary. But they were certainly "defeated" in that they sought the nomination and didn't get it.
Johnson is an interesting one as he actually won the New Hampshire vote. But it was such a narrow win, then RFK entered the race. So he saw no successful way forward for his campaign and he withdrew (albeit ill-health made that decision clearer). I think that is, in a meaningful sense, defeat.
Incidentally, who was the last US President to be actually defeated - as opposed to, not running - to seek and win renomination?
I keep coming up with Grover Cleveland in 1892 - is there anyone more recent than that? I know Hoover made two attempts but was unsuccessful.
Correct.
Note that Grover Cleveland's second term as POTUS was LESS than a success.
More like wretched failure. And by 1896, he and his administration were repudiated by most of his own Democratic Party.
Believe this was one reason why such retreds have NOT gotten much traction running for president ever since.
At least until 2024?
Indeed. There are a few other cases worth noting.
Theodore Roosevelt opted not to contest 1908 under the two-term convention but stood again in 1912, losing the nomination (despite sweeping such primaries as there were), then running a sufficiently strong third-party campaign to finish second.
Hoover, as noted above, sought the Republican nomination after losing re-election in 1932 but was unsuccessful.
Adlai Stevenson in 1952/56 and Richard Nixon in 1960/68 are the last candidates to be renominated after losing (Nixon, of course, won in 1968 and would go on to be nominated, and win, again in 1972). William Jennings Bryan is the only person to be nominated a third time after losing both previous elections (and would lose the third too).
If the candidates are Biden/Trump again, it will be the first time since Eisenhower/Stevenson in 1952/56 that the same pair of candidates fight two successive elections. The two other examples since the Dem/Rep party system developed are Cleveland/Harrison in 1888/92 and McKinley/Bryan in 1896/1900. 00 (Reagan/Mondale, 1984; also Taylor/Cass, 1848, in the Whig/Democrat era).
Slight correction: William Jennings Bryan was the only MAJOR party POTUS candidate renominated (and defeated) multiple times after his initial nomination (and defeat).
> Eugene V. Debs was POTUS nominee for Socialist Party in 1900, 1904, 1908, 1912 and 1920; at time of his last hurrah he was serving time in federal prison after being convicted of . . . wait for it . . . sedition due to his opposition to American entry into WW1.
> Norman Thomas was POTUS nominee for Socialist Party in 1932, 1936,1940 and 1944; when asked what he'd do IF he was actually elected, replied, "Demand a recount!"; AND in his youth, he was a paperboy in Marion, Ohio for newspaper published by future POTUS Warren Harding.
Yes, sorry, I was meaning major party candidates (which I stretched to include Roosevelt in 1912 given that he sought the Republican nomination, then finished in the top two anyway).
On a related note, Millard Fillmore ran as the Know-Nothing candidate in 1856, four years after stepping down as president (having sought but failing to secure renomination in 1852).
Martin Van Buren says "Yo!"
After he was renominated for POTUS by Democratic Party but defeated in 1840 election, MVB was again nominated (his 3rd-time) in 1848 (and again defeated) this time by the Free Soil Party.
It's been reported elsewhere that the Finns, themselves, have concluded that both countries are acting as bad actors.
If Putin consolidates in Ukraine and moves on to the Baltic states - former Soviet republics - then Finland, a former Russian Grand Duchy, would be next on the list. Will the Baltics become the next Balkans?
That I think depends on
a) Putin winning or drawing his war in Ukraine. b) Whether Europe, including Western Europe, can present a credible deterrence, or a clear prospect of a credible deterrence, at the point when he wants to make his move.
Such an attack really would change everything, being the first such attack since NATO was formed. Compared with such a step the rest of the conflicts around are little local difficulties. Any future unpredictable. If Trump were in charge, doubly so as the UK and France would need to check their matches are not damp, the password is written on a slip of paper and they can remember the key safe combination number.
I don't know what France are doing, but very little viewable beyond the end of Rishi Sunak's nose is imo being done in the UK before the Election.
Both UK defence spending, and UK committed support for Ukraine, have been cut in real terms recently, and the latest analsyses have identified gaping holes in future funding for basic programmes.
We'll be lining up firmly behind Poland.
This has to end. We have to tell the fucking pensioners (of which I will soon be one) that the mollycoddling is over. We cannot afford a welfare state as we’ve known it. We need defence spending of 5% to stop everyone being killed
Every NATO state needs defence spending of 5% to fully contain Putin, the UK alone wouldn't be enough
Arming Ukraine to defeat the invasion would significantly cut the likelihood of future wars.
Abandon them, as the US seems to be flirting with, and what you say is fairly inevitable.
Even without the US the remaining NATO economies combined are comfortably more than the Russian economy, they just need to spend as much on defence as Putin does and send much of that to Ukraine
While that's true, Europe does not have the capacity to sufficiently supply Ukraine in the next six months to a year. And a Ukrainian defeat would likely divide Europe between those who would stand up to Putin and those who would seek (an illusory) compromise with him.
The fate of Putin's invasion depends largely on the Republicans in Congress.
Look, Putin is not going to capture Kyiv even if the US didn't send Ukraine another cent.
Putin might hold what he has got and yes it would be preferable to drive him out of the country completely but it would just end up in deadlock not a Putin complete victory.
However the message remains Europe needs to fund more of its own defence and defend the borders of its own continent, not rely on whoever controls the US White House and Congress all the time
I'm afraid that's simply unrealistic. There's no political will, no spare money, especially not in Germany which is the country that would count, many European countries (Hungary? Slovakia? France under Le Pen?) are in any case unreliable, the attachment to national armies means you would never get the economics of scale and in any case there's no consensus as to where the borders of the continent are (the current EU border? including Ukraine or not? the Urals? what about the Med?).
Incidentally, who was the last US President to be actually defeated - as opposed to, not running - to seek and win renomination?
I keep coming up with Grover Cleveland in 1892 - is there anyone more recent than that? I know Hoover made two attempts but was unsuccessful.
Bush v Clinton in 1992?
I think you've misunderstood the question, which was about a President failing to get re-nomination rather than re-election. Clearly, several (including Bush) have failed to be re-elected, but were re-nominated by their party.
Although I'd note Johnson briefly ran for re-nomination in 1968 - it's just that he pulled out after a disappointing result in New Hampshire, which he only narrowly won. He said it was on the basis of ill-health (and his health was a factor although not the only factor) but arguably he did seek re-nomination.
He hadn't been defeated in an election!
But I don't really know how you define "defeat" in a primary process where candidates many withdrew. I mean, Mike Pence sought the Republican nomination in 2024, and Kamala Harris sought the Democratic one in 2020. They weren't "defeated" in the sense that they withdrew before the first primary. But they were certainly "defeated" in that they sought the nomination and didn't get it.
Johnson is an interesting one as he actually won the New Hampshire vote. But it was such a narrow win, then RFK entered the race. So he saw no successful way forward for his campaign and he withdrew (albeit ill-health made that decision clearer). I think that is, in a meaningful sense, defeat.
Re: NH 1968, LBJ and RFK, you've got things a bit scrambled.
As Wiki notes:
In November 1967, Eugene McCarthy declared, "there comes a time when an honorable man simply has to raise the flag" and entered the New Hampshire Democratic primary. On March 12, 1968, McCarthy, who was the only candidate on the ballot, came within 7 percentage points of defeating President Lyndon Johnson, a write-in candidate who was technically still exploring his candidacy and had not bothered to file. Just a few days later, on March 16, 1968, Robert F. Kennedy entered the race for President. Johnson subsequently withdrew from the election with this Shermanesque statement: “I shall not seek, and I will not accept, the nomination of my party for another term as your president.”
> Lyndon B. Johnson was never "officially" a candidate; saying that "he had not bothered to file" is not really correct, as decision to run as a write-in in NH appears to have been part strategy and part ambivlence.
> Robert F. Kennedy (Senior) did NOT declare his candidacy until AFTER the 1968 NH Primary; which was one of the reason why Eugene McCarthy and his supporters were so bitter about RFK's entry into the race . . . and (in their view) stealing McCarthy's electoral laundry off the clothes line.
Can personally testify to the depth of that bitterness, which affected relations between former McCarthy and Kennedy supporters for decades after 1968.
It's been reported elsewhere that the Finns, themselves, have concluded that both countries are acting as bad actors.
If Putin consolidates in Ukraine and moves on to the Baltic states - former Soviet republics - then Finland, a former Russian Grand Duchy, would be next on the list. Will the Baltics become the next Balkans?
That I think depends on
a) Putin winning or drawing his war in Ukraine. b) Whether Europe, including Western Europe, can present a credible deterrence, or a clear prospect of a credible deterrence, at the point when he wants to make his move.
Such an attack really would change everything, being the first such attack since NATO was formed. Compared with such a step the rest of the conflicts around are little local difficulties. Any future unpredictable. If Trump were in charge, doubly so as the UK and France would need to check their matches are not damp, the password is written on a slip of paper and they can remember the key safe combination number.
I don't know what France are doing, but very little viewable beyond the end of Rishi Sunak's nose is imo being done in the UK before the Election.
Both UK defence spending, and UK committed support for Ukraine, have been cut in real terms recently, and the latest analsyses have identified gaping holes in future funding for basic programmes.
We'll be lining up firmly behind Poland.
This has to end. We have to tell the fucking pensioners (of which I will soon be one) that the mollycoddling is over. We cannot afford a welfare state as we’ve known it. We need defence spending of 5% to stop everyone being killed
Every NATO state needs defence spending of 5% to fully contain Putin, the UK alone wouldn't be enough
Arming Ukraine to defeat the invasion would significantly cut the likelihood of future wars.
Abandon them, as the US seems to be flirting with, and what you say is fairly inevitable.
Even without the US the remaining NATO economies combined are comfortably more than the Russian economy, they just need to spend as much on defence as Putin does and send much of that to Ukraine
While that's true, Europe does not have the capacity to sufficiently supply Ukraine in the next six months to a year. And a Ukrainian defeat would likely divide Europe between those who would stand up to Putin and those who would seek (an illusory) compromise with him.
The fate of Putin's invasion depends largely on the Republicans in Congress.
Look, Putin is not going to capture Kyiv even if the US didn't send Ukraine another cent.
Putin might hold what he has got and yes it would be preferable to drive him out of the country completely but it would just end up in deadlock not a Putin complete victory.
However the message remains Europe needs to fund more of its own defence and defend the borders of its own continent, not rely on whoever controls the US White House and Congress all the time
I'm afraid that's simply unrealistic. There's no political will, no spare money, especially not in Germany which is the country that would count, many European countries (Hungary? Slovakia? France under Le Pen?) are in any case unreliable, the attachment to national armies means you would never get the economics of scale and in any case there's no consensus as to where the borders of the continent are (the current EU border? including Ukraine or not? the Urals? what about the Med?).
Well if Putin captures Kyiv, then marches his troops on through Poland and onto Berlin they can have no complaints then if European nations do not co ordinate their forces in NATO to control him
It's the hope that kills you. And it probably will be Hope that extinguishes it.
England have no Hope at present.
The sooner ODIs are abandoned the sooner our humiliations will end.
I just don't understand what has happened to Buttler. From one of the best batsmen in the world to an embarrassment in just months. Really sad. He will have to drop himself if it goes on like this.
Incidentally, who was the last US President to be actually defeated - as opposed to, not running - to seek and win renomination?
I keep coming up with Grover Cleveland in 1892 - is there anyone more recent than that? I know Hoover made two attempts but was unsuccessful.
Bush v Clinton in 1992?
I think you've misunderstood the question, which was about a President failing to get re-nomination rather than re-election. Clearly, several (including Bush) have failed to be re-elected, but were re-nominated by their party.
Although I'd note Johnson briefly ran for re-nomination in 1968 - it's just that he pulled out after a disappointing result in New Hampshire, which he only narrowly won. He said it was on the basis of ill-health (and his health was a factor although not the only factor) but arguably he did seek re-nomination.
He hadn't been defeated in an election!
But I don't really know how you define "defeat" in a primary process where candidates many withdrew. I mean, Mike Pence sought the Republican nomination in 2024, and Kamala Harris sought the Democratic one in 2020. They weren't "defeated" in the sense that they withdrew before the first primary. But they were certainly "defeated" in that they sought the nomination and didn't get it.
Johnson is an interesting one as he actually won the New Hampshire vote. But it was such a narrow win, then RFK entered the race. So he saw no successful way forward for his campaign and he withdrew (albeit ill-health made that decision clearer). I think that is, in a meaningful sense, defeat.
Aaargh! That's not what I said!
I said when has an incumbent president defeated in a PRESIDENTIAL election been renominated by their party for a later presidential election!
And the last example was Cleveland in 1892. Who won, ominously.
(I suppose Nixon as the incumbent VP might be considered close.)
It's the hope that kills you. And it probably will be Hope that extinguishes it.
England have no Hope at present.
The sooner ODIs are abandoned the sooner our humiliations will end.
I just don't understand what has happened to Buttler. From one of the best batsmen in the world to an embarrassment in just months. Really sad. He will have to drop himself if it goes on like this.
That should be easy enough. He's good at dropping people.
They ousted the main conservative party after 16 years in power at a Federal election just 2 years ago.
Does not bode that well for Starmer, albeit most likely on current polls it would be another CDU and SPD coalition given the AfD remain beyond the pale in Germany despite polling over 20% in most polls
Given that Starmer isn't the chancellor of the exchequer and deputy prime minister in the current government the situation isn't very similar.
Also the SPD were polling in the teens at the equivalent point in the last German parliament.
Union+Greens is a bit more likely than Union+SPD, although it's possible neither would actually get a majority on current polling.
The only combination which would have a majority on current polling is Union + AfD but even Merz, despite being right of Merkel, has ruled that out at Federal level
Maybe you are forgetting that parties that don't get 5% don't get into the Bundestag? In some of the latest polls that would mean only Union, AfD, Greens and SPD getting MPs.
Union + Greens or Union + SPD would be majorities in those polls.
Even where FDP just scrapes in Union + Greens or Union + SPD usually just gets a majority (or of course Union + any other 2 would be viable).
Far from certain that Merz will be the Union chancellor candidate, he's failed to impress, and the CDU polls better without him. He's even behind Scholz in the best Chancellor polling.
German CDU members selected Merz and wanted a shift to the right after Merkel, about 30-32% now back the CDU on the latest polls which is a significant increase from the 24% the Union got in 2021 and puts the Union clearly ahead. Merz would be chancellor whatever the coalition arithmetic on current polls
I'm not sure you understand how the German system works. The party leader of the leading coalition partner does not necessarily become Chancellor. For example: the current Chancellor. Neither was Merkel CDU party leader in her last years as Chancellor. I think it's quite likely that Merz won't be the Union Chancellor-candidate at the next election, even if he remains CDU leader, though of course it's possible he will be.
As for the polling, like I said the CDU polls better with alternatives named as potential chancellors, and worse when Merz is named as potential Chancellor. I don't know if you were trying to imply that the improvement in the CDU's polling is because of Merz. It's more that the CDU is the main opposition with an unpopular government.
The SPD have most seats in the German Parliament and Scholz is Chancellor. Merkel was also party leader of the CDU when she became Chancellor.
The CDU members elect their leader now and their membership voted for and back Merz, the CSU is the other Union partner who will select the Union chancellor candidate and even more rightwing than the CDU so the Union chancellor candidate certainly ain't going to be any more moderate than Merz is.
Who cares whether some alternative centrist might poll better than Merz when the CDU is going to win anyway on current polls. Most UK polls pre 1979 had Heath polling better than Thatcher but they were irrelevant as Thatcher won anyway
Yes Scholz is Chancellor. Scholz and Klara Geywitz were defeated by Norbert Walter-Borjans and Saskia Esken in the 2019 SPD leadership election. Despite not being party leader Scholz then became SPD Chancellor candidate.
Sure, the CDU might not care about opinion polling showing having Merz as Chancellor candidate would lose them votes. On the other hand last time they ignored the polling suggesting choosing Laschet as Chancellor candidate would lose them votes, so there will be plenty thinking they shouldn't do the same thing next time.
Speaking of "official" versus "unofficial" candidacies for POTUS, perhaps worth noting that Franklin D. Roosevelt was not an announced, official candidate for re-nomination in 1940 or 1944.
Instead, FDR's public (and even private) position was that he was NOT a candidate, however he also never ruled out a "draft" by the Democratic National Convention.
Heck, in 1940 he even allowed Jim Farley, his former campaign manager AND current Postmaster General (then a cabinet post) to run for the Democratic nomination, with the result that Farley got 72 votes versus 948 for FDR.
Other members of the cabinet who received 1940 DNC votes were Vice President John Nance Garner with 61, and Secretary of State Cordell Hull with 5.
Farley resigned as PMG before the 1940 election, while Garner was replaced as FDR's running mate by Henry Wallace (previously Secretary of Agriculture.
Farley formally endorsed Roosevelt, while IIRC Garner did not; Hull remained as Secretary of State until shortly after the 1944 election, when he resigned due to ill health.
Comments
For past Iowa precinct caucuses, DEMOCRATS have had rules requiring minimum theshold with provision for supporters of candidates NOT making the cut to chose an alternative who does/
But REPUBLICANS have NEVER had that rule; instead, Iowa GOP has always conducted a strait-up vote, with candidates awarded national convention delegates in proportion to their STATEWIDE vote totals.
https://www.iowagop.org/2024caucus
https://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/elections/presidential/caucus/2023/06/05/iowa-caucuses-2024-what-to-know-how-they-work/70244890007/
NOTE that it is possible under Republican rules for Democrats and Independents to "cross over" and vote in GOP precinct caucuses PROVIDED they (re-)register as Republicans, which they can do (apparently) at their local caucus meetings.
Which MIGHT be a factor in Nikki Haley's favor, as with potential Dem/Ind crossovers in New Hampshire primary.
Six states have them officially, including Texas.
Several others have filings for the primaries and the nominations at the same time so you have to declare your party affiliation and can't change it.
Finally, several states have the power to informally refuse him nomination. Most of them are Republican and if he can't run in them it wouldn't actually even be much good to his hurt feelings running.
Edit - there's quite an interesting article on it here from the Seattle Times:
https://www.seattletimes.com/nation-world/trumps-threat-of-a-third-party-run-is-undercut-by-sore-loser-laws/
Lots of states don't have such 'sore loser laws.'
Given how far ahead Trump is in polls he will almost certainly win the early primaries and caucuses anyway. Only if he is convicted and jailed and then fails to win a majority of delegates by the convention will he likely be stopped from getting the nomination by the GOP establishment at the convention.
It wasn't the last major nation to abolish slavery, for example.*
*Depending on your view of the Empire of Brazil.
Union + Greens or Union + SPD would be majorities in those polls.
Even where FDP just scrapes in Union + Greens or Union + SPD usually just gets a majority (or of course Union + any other 2 would be viable).
Far from certain that Merz will be the Union chancellor candidate, he's failed to impress, and the CDU polls better without him. He's even behind Scholz in the best Chancellor polling.
Note that in 1980, then Congressman John Anderson (R-Illinois) filed and ran as a Republican in a plethora of Republican primaries AND caucuses.
Then after losing the GOP nomination to Ronald Reagan, Anderson ran as an Independent for President, and was on the ballot in all 50 states plus District of Columbia.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_B._Anderson#1980_presidential_campaign
You can say that again!
The article does mention John Anderson. And note that "getting on the ballot would be a massive undertaking, and Republican officials like secretaries of state and attorneys general wouldn’t be inclined to give Trump the benefit of the doubt."
Absolutely. However, this did NOT stop John Anderson in 1980, not hardly.
BTW (also FYI) your's truly was one of the volunteers who helped Anderson get on the ballot in the Great State of Louisiana. An effort conducted on a shoestring, and which encountered some disinclination to assist from some local county election officials.
However, as DJT found out to his chagrin, most election officials, even pro-Trump Republicans, are also inclined to do their job even when push comes to shove.
https://time.com/4558510/electoral-college-history-slavery/
"Standard civics-class accounts of the Electoral College rarely mention the real demon dooming direct national election in 1787 and 1803: slavery.
At the Philadelphia convention, the visionary Pennsylvanian James Wilson proposed direct national election of the president. But the savvy Virginian James Madison responded that such a system would prove unacceptable to the South: “The right of suffrage was much more diffusive [i.e., extensive] in the Northern than the Southern States; and the latter could have no influence in the election on the score of Negroes.” In other words, in a direct election system, the North would outnumber the South, whose many slaves (more than half a million in all) of course could not vote. But the Electoral College—a prototype of which Madison proposed in this same speech—instead let each southern state count its slaves, albeit with a two-fifths discount, in computing its share of the overall count."
The possible problem for Trump with sore loser laws is it isn't always as simple as that the sore loser can't run. Sometimes he can run, but not for a different party. Other places he can run, but it has to be for a different party, he can't run as a pure independent.
I think a bigger problem for him, however, is he would just lose. He could do an Anderson and challenge the results, but his lawyers are, shall we say politely, not noted for their legal acumen. Heck, they couldn't even get the New York gagging orders permanently lifted despite Kitchen Cabinet's confident claims and the First Amndement.
And then, of course, he would lose the election anyway.
That said, of course, American law is very capable of springing surprises. Look at Colorado, where we were told the President isn't an officer of the United States but Trump is guilty of sedition and insurrection. The first is questionable and the second should really have been a matter for a jury.
California, population in 2020 = 39,538,223, gets 54 electors, or 1 elector per 732,189 people.
He can probably do that by his followers just not voting at all, but he could also run in as many states as he can under whatever banner he can (and where he is able to meet the various requirements to register).
Yes he would lose, and we know how much he hates to lose which is a major part of why he is currently so dangerous to democracy, but he would take comfort on the pain he could inflict on the way.
It's why the, say, 20% of the GOP who do not support Trump will mostly still back him, knowing he will hurt them if they do not. It's quite pathetic to see even the one's he already attack line up to kiss his rectum.
Abandon them, as the US seems to be flirting with, and what you say is fairly inevitable.
Not sure which laws you are referring to re: your saying "several were tightened up after Anderson v Celebrezze which is the one you're clearly thinking of."
Case you cite was in Federal courts, and overturned Ohio state law.
And when it comes to presidential elections (as opposed to nomination process) the Feds have final say IF they chose to say anything.
Didcot Labour
We are pleased to announce that Nicky Palmer is the new Chair of the Didcot and Wantage Constitiency Labour Party. Nicky is a former MP who currently lives in Brightwell (no, not that one!)
https://twitter.com/DidcotLabour/status/1733486402954780925
Is this our own @NickPalmer?
He wouldn't care about whether he won or not, he would just want to destroy the GOP in the Presidential election and ensure he retained his base (even from jail) in as many states as he could get on the ballot in
According to current polling, if you're under 50 you're as or more likely to believe the moon landings are faked as vote for the Conservative Party, with Reform barely a blip either. And the right seem to do little but moan about it and at people rather than do anything that might even begin to address it.
Those are the voters that drive the economy and have the biggest stake in the country working well, as well as the future. Given that, what does that say about the right and their contempt for voters and people of working age? Many of whom used to be 'their' voters. as until relatively recently, those from 30 and above used to be a relatively even split and generally reflected the broader political picture.
There might well be an Eastern European shared project, among like minded states.
I keep coming up with Grover Cleveland in 1892 - is there anyone more recent than that? I know Hoover made two attempts but was unsuccessful.
Note that Grover Cleveland's second term as POTUS was LESS than a success.
More like wretched failure. And by 1896, he and his administration were repudiated by most of his own Democratic Party.
Believe this was one reason why such retreds have NOT gotten much traction running for president ever since.
At least until 2024?
But I'm hoping that's one record Cleveland can hang on to.
The fate of Putin's invasion depends largely on the Republicans in Congress.
I think Starmer will try to deal with this by firstly winning power by default, saying as little as possible, and then a hefty dose of slightly grown up talk of how the future might shape up.
What the underlying core principles are of the Tories now, I have no idea. Ask how an imaginary truly statesmanlike Tory cabinet would go from here and what principles it would apply, and my imagination fails.
Putin might hold what he has got and yes it would be preferable to drive him out of the country completely but it would just end up in deadlock not a Putin complete victory.
However the message remains Europe needs to fund more of its own defence and defend the borders of its own continent, not rely on whoever controls the US White House and Congress all the time
As for the polling, like I said the CDU polls better with alternatives named as potential chancellors, and worse when Merz is named as potential Chancellor. I don't know if you were trying to imply that the improvement in the CDU's polling is because of Merz. It's more that the CDU is the main opposition with an unpopular government.
The CDU members elect their leader now and their membership voted for and back Merz, the CSU is the other Union partner who will select the Union chancellor candidate and even more rightwing than the CDU so the Union chancellor candidate certainly ain't going to be any more moderate than Merz is.
Who cares whether some alternative centrist might poll better than Merz when the CDU is going to win anyway on current polls. Most UK polls pre 1979 had Heath polling better than Thatcher but they were irrelevant as Thatcher won anyway
https://twitter.com/FootballFunnnys/status/1733569546961957291/photo/1
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pz2tsZA9xcg
Found this after 30 seconds of goggling:
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskARussian/comments/tnmi70/do_you_know_sergey_baklykov_and_if_yes_what_do/
And secondly, why would Trump carry any state in the general election if he lost the primaries and nomination?
The only way he loses the nomination - for which he's currently polling 60%+, by the way, against peanuts for the rest - is if his campaign completely implodes. And if that happens, where then is his support in November?
That would still give him about 20% of the US vote and in states without sore loser rules where he got on the ballot and won by large margins even in 2020 eg West Virginia, he certainly might win those states as a 3rd party candidate
"IN THIS CASE, THE GENERAL ELECTION IS ALMOST A YEAR AWAY, AND WILL LONG POSTDATE THE TRIAL IN THIS CASE.”
https://twitter.com/AWeissmann_/status/1733549968768516147
https://youtu.be/DvswW6M7bMo?si=eusruWKcMZ9ZWD-j
Oh, and been struck from the ballot as a result of the 14th Amendment - as upheld by the Supreme Court.
Theodore Roosevelt opted not to contest 1908 under the two-term convention but stood again in 1912, losing the nomination (despite sweeping such primaries as there were), then running a sufficiently strong third-party campaign to finish second.
Hoover, as noted above, sought the Republican nomination after losing re-election in 1932 but was unsuccessful.
Adlai Stevenson in 1952/56 and Richard Nixon in 1960/68 are the last candidates to be renominated after losing (Nixon, of course, won in 1968 and would go on to be nominated, and win, again in 1972). William Jennings Bryan is the only person to be nominated a third time after losing both previous elections (and would lose the third too).
If the candidates are Biden/Trump again, it will be the first time since Eisenhower/Stevenson in 1952/56 that the same pair of candidates fight two successive elections. The two other examples since the Dem/Rep party system developed are Cleveland/Harrison in 1888/92 and McKinley/Bryan in 1896/1900.
If it is Trump/Biden, their combined age of 160 will be by far the highest, and the third election in a row that a new record has been set. Prior to 2016, the highest combined age was just 130 (Reagan/Mondale, 1984; also Taylor/Cass, 1848, in the Whig/Democrat era).
https://twitter.com/gavreilly/status/1733176579579056369
Rules are rules. If the Goalscorer handles the ball, however accidentally, it’s disallowed, but for anyone who’s been watching football 30-40 years it seems like madness to disallow Havertz’s goal there - the Villa player, Cash (@anabobazina wouldn’t like him) played it onto his hand from about 6 inches away
> Eugene V. Debs was POTUS nominee for Socialist Party in 1900, 1904, 1908, 1912 and 1920; at time of his last hurrah he was serving time in federal prison after being convicted of . . . wait for it . . . sedition due to his opposition to American entry into WW1.
> Norman Thomas was POTUS nominee for Socialist Party in 1932, 1936,1940 and 1944; when asked what he'd do IF he was actually elected, replied, "Demand a recount!"; AND in his youth, he was a paperboy in Marion, Ohio for newspaper published by future POTUS Warren Harding.
On a related note, Millard Fillmore ran as the Know-Nothing candidate in 1856, four years after stepping down as president (having sought but failing to secure renomination in 1852).
Itunes is a bloody awful bit of software though, and I definitely wouldn't buy music through it.
I'm sure they'll come roaring back in their next ODI game though, in a mere 9 months time
Ross Matthewman: Wow, the reaction from Arteta and the Arsenal players to losing that match feels really petulant and entitled. Chalk and cheese with how City responded on Wednesday.
Another bad outcome for Trump.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F7qQwXKAMCU&ab_channel=MeidasTouch
Some new physics in the offing.
Meet Strange Metals: Where Electricity May Flow Without Electrons
By
CHARLIE WOOD
November 27, 2023
For 50 years, physicists have understood current as a flow of charged particles. But a new experiment has found that in at least one strange material, this understanding falls apart.
https://www.quantamagazine.org/meet-strange-metals-where-electricity-may-flow-without-electrons-20231127/
HW was the most recent incumbent to be defeated I believe
I appreciate he's having some trouble accepting it...
Although I'd note Johnson briefly ran for re-nomination in 1968 - it's just that he pulled out after a disappointing result in New Hampshire, which he only narrowly won. He said it was on the basis of ill-health (and his health was a factor although not the only factor) but arguably he did seek re-nomination.
I've bought BiL a couple of rosewood handled David Mellor knives
Johnson is an interesting one as he actually won the New Hampshire vote. But it was such a narrow win, then RFK entered the race. So he saw no successful way forward for his campaign and he withdrew (albeit ill-health made that decision clearer). I think that is, in a meaningful sense, defeat.
After he was renominated for POTUS by Democratic Party but defeated in 1840 election, MVB was again nominated (his 3rd-time) in 1848 (and again defeated) this time by the Free Soil Party.
As Wiki notes:
In November 1967, Eugene McCarthy declared, "there comes a time when an honorable man simply has to raise the flag" and entered the New Hampshire Democratic primary. On March 12, 1968, McCarthy, who was the only candidate on the ballot, came within 7 percentage points of defeating President Lyndon Johnson, a write-in candidate who was technically still exploring his candidacy and had not bothered to file. Just a few days later, on March 16, 1968, Robert F. Kennedy entered the race for President. Johnson subsequently withdrew from the election with this Shermanesque statement: “I shall not seek, and I will not accept, the nomination of my party for another term as your president.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Hampshire_presidential_primary
Note that in 1968
> Lyndon B. Johnson was never "officially" a candidate; saying that "he had not bothered to file" is not really correct, as decision to run as a write-in in NH appears to have been part strategy and part ambivlence.
> Robert F. Kennedy (Senior) did NOT declare his candidacy until AFTER the 1968 NH Primary; which was one of the reason why Eugene McCarthy and his supporters were so bitter about RFK's entry into the race . . . and (in their view) stealing McCarthy's electoral laundry off the clothes line.
Can personally testify to the depth of that bitterness, which affected relations between former McCarthy and Kennedy supporters for decades after 1968.
The sooner ODIs are abandoned the sooner our humiliations will end.
I said when has an incumbent president defeated in a PRESIDENTIAL election been renominated by their party for a later presidential election!
And the last example was Cleveland in 1892. Who won, ominously.
(I suppose Nixon as the incumbent VP might be considered close.)
Sure, the CDU might not care about opinion polling showing having Merz as Chancellor candidate would lose them votes. On the other hand last time they ignored the polling suggesting choosing Laschet as Chancellor candidate would lose them votes, so there will be plenty thinking they shouldn't do the same thing next time.
Yes, Thatcher is irrelevant in this case.
Instead, FDR's public (and even private) position was that he was NOT a candidate, however he also never ruled out a "draft" by the Democratic National Convention.
Heck, in 1940 he even allowed Jim Farley, his former campaign manager AND current Postmaster General (then a cabinet post) to run for the Democratic nomination, with the result that Farley got 72 votes versus 948 for FDR.
Other members of the cabinet who received 1940 DNC votes were Vice President John Nance Garner with 61, and Secretary of State Cordell Hull with 5.
Farley resigned as PMG before the 1940 election, while Garner was replaced as FDR's running mate by Henry Wallace (previously Secretary of Agriculture.
Farley formally endorsed Roosevelt, while IIRC Garner did not; Hull remained as Secretary of State until shortly after the 1944 election, when he resigned due to ill health.