Posted on 02/18/2016 1:26:35 PM PST by OldSaltUSN
I hate vanity posts, so you won't be seeing many from me. However, an odd thought struck me today about the Presidential election which might be fun to toss around a bit. The Presidential general election of 2016 could end up being a four-horse race. Hope ya all enjoy: now, play nice in the FR sandbox!!
Sanders starts losing big in a half dozen states. He's out, but he'll also shift the Democrat platform hard left as the cost exacted for his departure. Democrats lose in November.
Sanders continues to win every primary, but loses by delegate count to Hillary Clinton due to the (un)-Democrat system of super-delegates. Sanders (I) bolts the party, sets up shop as an independent candidate, and takes half the Democrat activists with him. Likely November result: Democrat loss.
Trump wins big in South Carolina, so big that all candidates drop out except one. The GOP-e makes a deal, and maybe Cruz or Rubio take over as the sole candidate running the anti-Trump campaign. Trump wins Super Tuesday, and never looks back. Trump is the GOP nominee. Likely outcome: GOP wins if Democrats are divided, loses if they are united.
Trump loses, either in SC or Super Tuesday, or even by a couple of delegates at the GOP convention this summer, but he retains 30% or higher of the GOP rank and file. Trump cites GOP-e "unfairness", bolts the party, sets up shop and runs as an independent, taking 1/3 or more of the GOP vote with him. He most likely does this if the Democrat vote remains fractured. Likely outcome: Wild card. Trump can win if he takes the lost Democrats who can not find a place within their own party, either Sanders or Hillary people. At this point, Trump's ideology or policies may not matter to these voters. (Note: This could be the first election in history where the elected President has neither an electoral college majority NOR a majority of the popular vote. How would he/she govern? It would be the first appearance of a pseudo-parliamentary coalition style government in the USA. If ya wanted to see gridlock, have I got a ticket for you!)
Unfortunately, I see very few scenarios where a conservative President wins in 2016. The chaos favors neither the GOP-e, conservatives, or the "angry right" (since some here don't like being called a "conservative", or labelled at all). Chaos favors the progressive left, in my humble opinion. They know how to take advantage of chaos, as they regularly evade and twist rules and the rule of law to their advantage. (Note: This is why I so vociferously oppose the "slash and burn" comments and character assassination led by Trump (not exclusively, but he's clearly bombast central). It's not constructive. Conservatives, "bomb throwing" or traditional, just have no path to victory if we're divided. People will not unite with people who insult their personal integrity; it's just not going to happen, folks.)
I think the likelihood of BOTH Sanders and Trump running independent campaigns is remote, e.g. deals can always be made at the conventions, and "Hillary/Sanders" or "Trump/GOP-E" tickets are certainly plausible. However, the likelihood of a "normal" party controlled election (e.g. "Hillary/DNC-e" and "GOP-e/Acceptable Outsider or Conservative Candidate") is equally remote.
If the stakes weren't so high, I'd say "pass the popcorn and put on some hot coco, it's going to be a fantastic show to watch". However, while the progressives are playing for poker chips and beer, conservatives are playing for the whole ball of wax. The Democrats don't believe in a Constitutional Democratic Republic, period. The Constitution is an old "dead white man's" relic that must be shredded for society to progress to their ideal, in the minds of progressive Democrats. They want a "living Constitution", which could include everything, anything, and Sharia law on weekends, depending on the political climate of "now".
If conservatives lose, or, if the GOP selects a candidate who is willing to put a progressive, "living Constitution" judge on the Supreme Court, then it's over. I'm not just talking in terms of 1st amendment (religious freedom & abortion), 2nd amendment (right to bear arms), or the 10th amendment (States rights and limited government). It's over, because there will be no more Constitution to refer back to, if a progressive court rules for the average 4-6 years. The paper document might still be there, as a nice wood-framed-cabinet museum piece, but the meaning will be ashes.
It'll go that quickly, as the progressives gin up law suits and court challenges to expedite their challenges to the USSC, thus codifying their new "progressive" living Constitution. While a Constitutional convention could be convened to rescind liberal mischief, even that device could be impacted by a USSC progressive court decision. I'm not calling anyone names, but pre-war Germany had a Constitutional system of checks and balances which were eventually wound down legally by Hitler, prior to his taking control as absolute dictator. As Ben Franklin once commented to a citizen, so also are we faced with the same challenge, to wit: "Well, Doctor, what have we got - a Republic or a Monarchy?". To which Franklin replied, "A Republic, if you can keep it".
"Keeping it", requires election of a Conservative U.S. President in 2016, and probably for two, four year terms of office. (Note: Regarding my "4-6" year average, turnover for the USSC court is usually one justice about every 6 years, but a progressive court majority could be much shorter lived than that, due to the health and age of a couple of Justices.)
As an aside, I believe any mention, literally or constructively of a "living Constitution" by a elected official, or USSC candidate or sitting Justice, is de facto intent to subvert the Constitution in violation of their oath of office, and therefore, an impeachable offense. (Fortunately for progressives, I'm neither a Constitutional scholar nor lawyer.)
“I hate vanity posts, so you won’t be seeing many from me. “
Since you’ve only been here for two days, I guess we’ll see.
Welcome to FR, OldSalt.
Check the election of 1860 for a historic example of a 4 way race.
I think you have the wrong fourth.
Hillary or Sanders (Democrat)
Cruz or Rubio (Republican)
Trump (independent)
Bloomberg (independent)
Since you’re an unknown in these here parts, we’ll take what you posted with a grain of old salt.
Sanders has no chance to win the nomination. The only GOP chances for the nomination are Trump and Rubio. And they’re also the only two that can beat Hillary. It will only be a two man race.
Thanks for the kind words. I'm about ready to put myself on "FR probation" and walk away from the keyboard for a week. On the other hand, I've been away from regular work in my profession for nearly a year, due to other interests, and I found out that I'm forgetting how to construct an intelligent sentence. FR appears to be good "rehabilitation therapy" for the mind.
Bernie is too dedicated to the party to run as an independent. Trump is too thin skinned to take the rejection of a loss.
This could lead to Paul Ryan as President.
Deadlocked chambers
If the House of Representatives has not chosen a president-elect in time for the inauguration (noon on January 20), then Section 3 of the Twentieth Amendment specifies that the vice president-elect becomes acting president until the House selects a president. If there is also no vice president-elect in time for the inauguration, then under the Presidential Succession Act of 1947, the sitting Speaker of the House would become acting president until either the House selects a president or the Senate selects a vice president. Neither of these situations has ever occurred.
It was really just a discussion starter. I hadn't read or heard much about downstream election possibilities, i.e. the media is so narrowly focused on the current state primary, that the bigger picture isn't yet in focus.
Not saying that I have any better crystal ball than anyone else (otherwise, I assure you that I'd be signing that seven figure, long term contract with a cable news network today!).
FReegards, my friend.
Hillary is dead. Sanders is gaining momentum. He’s tapping the energy Obama did along with Trump.
The Democrat party won’t back the commie. That means another candidate which might be Lieden with Liawatha as a VP. Bloomberg, with his ego, will jump oin providing the analysis he’s buying strokes his ego. I look for Sanders to go Independent after being rebuffed b the super delegates going with the party choice.
On the Republican side I see Trump a making it out of the convention unscathed,
Ultimately it will be a three way race with Trump (outside chance of Cruz), Lieden and the commie.
Really think he can do it?
Trump not going anywhere
Sanders how does he get on State Ballots as the two parties have Sore Loser laws
I can be friends even with a few progressive acquaintances, but it's strictly "trust, but verify" with them. I expect to have far more in common with fellow conservatives on this forum.
FReegards, my friend.
FReegards.
I admit that I have not done the research, but if memory serves, the deadlines for the general elections versus primaries are different, and different rules would apply to independents versus party candidates (e.g. governed by internal party rules; once a candidate flees a party, he's no longer bound by them). I believe that there's still ample time for a new nominee to get himself placed on ballots as an independent, but I do not know the exact timelines (60 days, I expect), nor the rules on a state by state basis.
Your question is certainly valid, and I'm WAY too lazy or busy (I'll select "busy") to do the in depth research required to obtain a definitive answer.
Bloomberg has spend quite a bit of money at state and local levels with anti-gun campaigns. He’s made a bunch of contacts he might be able to convert to his benefit. He’s got the money and most likely the stroke to get on enough state ballets to run.
I disagree about Trump simply because he’s tapped into what the Clinton’s would have you believe is the VRWC or more realistically, the silent majority. You can’t ignore the turnout for his events.
Sanders would have to run as an independent. He’s really not a Democrat. The key for any Democrat candidate is what happens to the super delegates when Hillary is forced out of the race? Will they transfer to the commie. Probably not.
Welcome! OldSaltUSN
Well, since there's only one left in the race, and half of the most conservative base here has spent 2 months eviscerating him, I can see the reason for that assessment.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.