531
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 29 Dec 2023
531 points (100.0% liked)
politics
18883 readers
3065 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Going to get down voted for this, but I honestly think Minnesota has the right of it. The GOP is a private entity and can run whoever they want in their primaries.
14A has nothing to say about how parties select their candidates, and if they want to select someone who isn't qualified that's their problem.
Also, if Trump fails to win the GOP nomination, someone really needs to seed the idea that they should all do write in votes for Trump instead of whoever the GOP would nominate instead. Show the GOP they shouldn't back down and show the Dems they can't stop the Trump Train. Also, you know, splitting the GOP vote to make an easier Dem win, but sshhh about that last part.
Primaries use public voting infrastructure, at least in my state, so I can see the argument that courts can decide who is a legal primary candidate.
The risk is what the GOP is threatening to do in Colorado. If Trump isn't allowed on the public voting infrastructure, they'll just caucus instead.
In which case, it's likely that independents won't be allowed to participate.
So for primaries, it's likely to have the opposite effect, more likely for a Trump candidacy, by stirring up the base and locking out potential moderate voters.
For general election, Maine and Colorado don't practically matter, they were never going to go to trump anyway. So for these two states, it's ammunition for a persecution complex without good result. For it to be a good strategic win, it would have to be some states that Trump actually has a chance of winning.
They have every right to. Again, because a primary isn't an election for office, it's a private entity (in this case the GOP) being allowed to borrow public infrastructure to help them decide who they want to back for the actual election.
Same reason super delegates for the Dems weren't illegal, even if they were in bad faith.
It's perfectly in their rights, but not what an effort seeking to prevent a Trump candidacy should want.
If the state ruled Trump can't be on the primary ballot because he's ineligible to be president, then he can't be on the main ballot because he's ineligible to be president. That means no Republican will be on the ballot, and that's really bad for the Republicans.
Trump missing from the ballot in Colorado and Maine would not make a difference, they don't vote Republican in the general election anyway.
You'd need this to happen in a vaguely competitive state. Judging from the progress of various attempts, that doesn't seem likely, unless the supreme Court declared it nationally, but I don't see that happening even if they let Colorado and Maine stand.
So you have got a bunch of Trump die hards inspired to "fight like hell" in the face of what they describe as an injustice, all to block him in a state he wasn't going to win anyway.
Now if you pulled this off in some place like Georgia, Florida, Texas, then sure, that would be quite the blow and may persuade the GOP voters to really around some other candidate that would be more tolerable. But Colorado and Maine aren't going to really help general election results.