Predictions: How many GOP-controlled states will fight to keep the Dem candidate off the ballot?

[artradley]

Johnson has already floated the idea. I think Arizona is a lock for trying to claim that because Biden won the primary nobody else can be on the ballot. Georgia, Virginia, the Carolinas. Hell, I would guess most of them will make the argument.

Of course, the law won’t support them, but we already know the GOP no longer feels they are bound by our laws. My guess is that it will get ugly.

 

[tumorboy]

Trying to keep her off the ballot will only help her campaign. Raise money off it and it’s positive press.

 

[83Hawk]

None.

 

[SL Hawk Fan]

What is…“All of them,” Alex.
I’ll take Republican Shitshow for $1,000.

 

[Rifler]

Won't be an issue now that Biden has formally resigned the nomination,.. old news.

 

[artradley]

Won't be an issue now that Biden has formally resigned the nomination,.. old news.

Your House Speaker says it will be an issue.

 

[Hawk_82]

I think they should threaten to keep anyone but kamala off the ballot until the dnc, but not actually stop anything. Americans deserve a real election.

I think kamala should be able to easily replace Biden since she is vp already.

A precedent needs to be set that it's not ok to change the candidate 3 weeks before the convention just because they are losing in the polls otherwise this will happen again in the future.

Having said that, Biden is not capable of serving another 4 years, so there has to be a channel to replace a candidate when necessary. Dems need to reap the consequences of knowingly running biden despite his mental decline. They were deceiving Americans and this process should not be easy for them.

 

[Colonoscopy]

Well they tried it on Trump

 

[Rifler]

Your House Speaker says it will be an issue.

Nope,.. His comments came prior to Biden's formal resignation and release of his delegates,... No longer applicable.

 

[funksouljon]

I think they will saber rattle and then end the end maybe one will try, but it's mostly a create noise and see what garbage sticks to the wall.

 

[KFsdisciple]

I've heard the trouble states for this are Wisconsin, Nevada, and Arizona.

 

[funksouljon]

I've heard the trouble states for this are Wisconsin, Nevada, and Arizona.

Kari Lake will definitely make noise in AZ.

 

[Dr. Phil Seuss]

Johnson has already floated the idea. I think Arizona is a lock for trying to claim that because Biden won the primary nobody else can be on the ballot. Georgia, Virginia, the Carolinas. Hell, I would guess most of them will make the argument.

Of course, the law won’t support them, but we already know the GOP no longer feels they are bound by our laws. My guess is that it will get ugly.

There’s little in the way of a logical argument against Kamala Harris replacing him because she is on his ticket, and a vote for Biden is a vote acknowledging he could step down and she would be in charge at any time during his presidency.

 

[KFsdisciple]

Kari Lake will definitely make noise in AZ.

I'm not sure there's noise to be made, each state has their own qualification rules for being on the ballot. These states had their primaries and awarded their wins. I don't know if there's a constitutional remedy within those states without amendments to their voting laws. Based on their voting laws, I would imagine Joe has to be on the ballot and people could write-in names of anyone they want to vote for.

 

[funksouljon]

I'm not sure there's noise to be made, each state has their own qualification rules for being on the ballot. These states had their primaries and awarded their wins. I don't know if there's a constitutional remedy within those states without amendments to their voting laws.

She is still protesting her 2022 loss. That has been sworn, serviced, sealed and stamped. Her replacement is in office doing the job. But she is still protesting to anyone who will listen. I expect her to do the opposite of anything logical at this point.

https://www.courthousenews.com/still-fighting-last-election-arizonas-kari-lake-battles-toward-senate/

 

[DirtyJohns97]

What is…“All of them,” Alex.
I’ll take Republican Shitshow for $1,000.

This is as close as I've seen to someone getting this joke right lately.
But I do have to point out that the "clue" would not have been presented to you as a question, as it was here.

 

[Aardvark86]

On balance, I tend to think that any such effort will not be a serious one or actually backed by the people who actually matter.

That said Art, let's make the question a little more relevant, through precision.

First, let's assume, liberally, that there's maybe a baker's dozen states that may actually matter. I'll go with AZ, FL, GA, MI, MN, NV, NH, NC, OH, PA, TX, VA, WI. (If you really wanted to get edgy, you might throw in NE inasmuch as there is a horrific but realistic scenario where R's carry that district and we end up with a 269-269 tie, but let's keep it 'simple' for now.)

Now of those states, let's also assume that this is an action within the power of the executive branch, and not the legislature, such that the governor would be the one making the call. That pretty much eliminates AZ, MI, MN, NC, PA, and WI off the bat, inasmuch as those states are run by D governors. Further, I'll go out on a limb and guess too that GA, NH, and OH are probably unlikely given that Kemp, Sununu, and Portman are not actually crazy people and/or have a track record of not wanting to wade into nonsense - and Trump probably has GA and OH anyway. That leaves us with FL, NV, TX, and VA. So I guess FL and TX "could" - their governors are crazy enough - but Trump likely has those states anyway.

That leaves us with NV and VA. Interestingly enough, those two states represent a combined 19 electoral votes, which is precisely the number that Trump probably needs to get to 270, taking into account "likely" outcomes as of today in NC, GA, and other states in his favor, of course with the ginormous caveat that who knows where things really stand right now.

I don't really know much about these states' ballot access laws, or about NV's R governor. Personally, I think Youngkin has longer term ambitions than to go down this road. But realistically, "speculating" over this in anything but those two states is just a silly exercise in push-polling.

Supplement: If you wanted to hypothesize on the basis of Secretaries of State rather than Governor party affiliation, it doesn't get much more likely to be meaningful, and probably gets less meaningful, inasmuch as the NV secretary of state is a democrat. (PA, FWIW, is an R, but is a gubernatorial appointee and could presumably be removed if there were a whiff of that.)

 

[artradley]

On balance, I tend to think that any such effort will not be a serious one or actually backed by the people who actually matter.

That said Art, let's make the question a little more relevant, through precision.

First, let's assume, liberally, that there's maybe a baker's dozen states that may actually matter. I'll go with AZ, FL, GA, MI, MN, NV, NH, NC, OH, PA, TX, VA, WI. (If you really wanted to get edgy, you might throw in NE inasmuch as there is a horrific but realistic scenario where R's carry that district and we end up with a 269-269 tie, but let's keep it 'simple' for now.)

Now of those states, let's also assume that this is an action within the power of the executive branch, and not the legislature, such that the governor would be the one making the call. That pretty much eliminates AZ, MI, MN, NC, PA, and WI off the bat, inasmuch as those states are run by D governors. Further, I'll go out on a limb and guess too that GA, NH, and OH are probably unlikely given that Kemp, Sununu, and Portman are not actually crazy people and/or have a track record of not wanting to wade into nonsense - and Trump probably has GA and OH anyway. That leaves us with FL, NV, TX, and VA. So I guess FL and TX "could" - their governors are crazy enough - but Trump likely has those states anyway.

That leaves us with NV and VA. Interestingly enough, those two states represent a combined 19 electoral votes, which is precisely the number that Trump probably needs to get to 270, taking into account "likely" outcomes as of today in NC, GA, and other states in his favor, of course with the ginormous caveat that who knows where things really stand right now.

I don't really know much about these states' ballot access laws, or about NV's R governor. Personally, I think Youngkin has longer term ambitions than to go down this road. But realistically, "speculating" over this in anything but those two states is just an exercise in push-polling.

“Now of those states, let's also assume that this is an action within the power of the executive branch, and not the legislature, such that the governor would be the one making the call.”

Why would we assume that? The GOP’s stance on all these matters seems to be that state legislatures are all-powerful.

 

[millah_22]

Johnson has already floated the idea. I think Arizona is a lock for trying to claim that because Biden won the primary nobody else can be on the ballot. Georgia, Virginia, the Carolinas. Hell, I would guess most of them will make the argument.

Of course, the law won’t support them, but we already know the GOP no longer feels they are bound by our laws. My guess is that it will get ugly.

Republicans may try but states get the ballot info straight from the DNC anyway. The effort will just be for show.

 

[artradley]

There’s little in the way of a logical argument against Kamala Harris replacing him because she is on his ticket, and a vote for Biden is a vote acknowledging he could step down and she would be in charge at any time during his presidency.

There was no logical case for any of the dozens of lawsuits after the 2020 election. There was no logical basis for 147 Republicans in Congress to vote to overturn the election results. There certainly was no logical basis for Arizona to ask Cyber Ninjas to review their ballots.

The days of requiring a reasonable basis for actions are long gone.

 

[Scruddy]

Hopefully all with a valid legal claim.

 

[Aardvark86]

“Now of those states, let's also assume that this is an action within the power of the executive branch, and not the legislature, such that the governor would be the one making the call.”

Why would we assume that? The GOP’s stance on all these matters seems to be that state legislatures are all-powerful.

we would assume that for the simple reason that Secretaries of state, and boards of election, are executive officers/agencies, not legislative ones. That is not rocket science. And of course, even if you wanted to go down the road of R controlled legislatures trying to rush through legislation in, say, the next month or two when a lot of them are actually not even in session, I doubt that any of those states are so firmly in control that they could override a D gubernatorial veto. But I could check if you really want me to. I mean it's only navel-gazing.

Navel Gazing Supplement: Of the various states we've considered, only NC has an R veto-proof legislative majority vis a D governor, but the R's are likely to win there anyway.

 

[Chishawk1425]

👀

 

[Aardvark86]

👀

View embedded media

Tribe and Elias are ultimately right on this too, though I don't recall the 60x involving this kind of case, so I think they're just pleasuring themselves on that front.

 

[THE_DEVIL]

Starting with the 1796 election, congressional party or a state legislature party caucus selected the party's presidential candidates.[3] That system collapsed in 1824, and since 1832 the preferred mechanism for nomination has been a national convention.[4] Delegates to the national convention were usually selected at state conventions whose own delegates were chosen by district conventions. Sometimes they were dominated by intrigue between political bosses who controlled delegates; the national convention was far from democratic or transparent.

Progressive Era reformers then looked to the primary election as a way to measure popular opinion of candidates, as opposed to the opinion of the bosses. Florida enacted the first presidential primary in 1901. The Wisconsin direct open primary of 1905 was the first to eliminate the caucus and mandate direct selection of national convention delegates. In 1910, Oregon became the first state to establish a presidential preference primary, which requires delegates to the National Convention to support the winner of the primary at the convention. The impetus for national adoption of the binding primary election was the 1968 Democratic National Convention. Vice President Hubert Humphrey secured the presidential nomination despite not winning a single primary under his own name. After this, a Democratic National Committee-commissioned panel led by Senator George McGovern – the McGovern–Fraser Commission – recommended that states adopt new rules to assure wider participation. A large number of states, faced with the need to conform to more detailed rules for the selection of national delegates in 1972, chose a presidential primary as an easier way to come into compliance with the new national Democratic Party rules. The result was that many more future delegates would be selected by a state presidential primary. The Republicans also adopted many more state presidential primaries.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unite... 1796 election,has been a national convention.

 

[Aardvark86]

Starting with the 1796 election, congressional party or a state legislature party caucus selected the party's presidential candidates.[3] That system collapsed in 1824, and since 1832 the preferred mechanism for nomination has been a national convention.[4] Delegates to the national convention were usually selected at state conventions whose own delegates were chosen by district conventions. Sometimes they were dominated by intrigue between political bosses who controlled delegates; the national convention was far from democratic or transparent.

Progressive Era reformers then looked to the primary election as a way to measure popular opinion of candidates, as opposed to the opinion of the bosses. Florida enacted the first presidential primary in 1901. The Wisconsin direct open primary of 1905 was the first to eliminate the caucus and mandate direct selection of national convention delegates. In 1910, Oregon became the first state to establish a presidential preference primary, which requires delegates to the National Convention to support the winner of the primary at the convention. The impetus for national adoption of the binding primary election was the 1968 Democratic National Convention. Vice President Hubert Humphrey secured the presidential nomination despite not winning a single primary under his own name. After this, a Democratic National Committee-commissioned panel led by Senator George McGovern – the McGovern–Fraser Commission – recommended that states adopt new rules to assure wider participation. A large number of states, faced with the need to conform to more detailed rules for the selection of national delegates in 1972, chose a presidential primary as an easier way to come into compliance with the new national Democratic Party rules. The result was that many more future delegates would be selected by a state presidential primary. The Republicans also adopted many more state presidential primaries.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_nominating_convention#:~:text=Starting with the 1796 election,has been a national convention.

This. At the end of the day, it's not a complicated problem. Primaries are votes for pledged delegates. Those pledged delegates will be at the convention. Their 'pledgee' has withdrawn, and I can only assume the party rules specifically release the pledgors from their pledges in those circumstances. (If they don't, well, shame on them, but I'd still argue it's implicit). They can vote how they want. It's ironically nondemocratic, but perfectly reasonable, and after all, what's a poor delegate to do?

Silly for R's to be floating this, silly for D's to be getting exorcised about it.

 

[KFsdisciple]

This. At the end of the day, it's not a complicated problem. Primaries are votes for pledged delegates. Those pledged delegates will be at the convention. Their 'pledgee' has withdrawn, and I can only assume the party rules specifically release the pledgors from their pledges in those circumstances. (If they don't, well, shame on them, but I'd still argue it's implicit). They can vote how they want. It's ironically nondemocratic, but perfectly reasonable, and after all, what's a poor delegate to do?

Silly for R's to be floating this, silly for D's to be getting exorcised about it.

Not sure how one can cry about the day democracy almost died... and how one man and one party wants to end democracy, then turn around 3.5 years later and a presidential candidate is installed not elected. Either the states that already had primaries should have emergency primaries if that's written into their voting laws, if not, the people have spoken, and they chose Joe. His name should be on the ballot and people can write-in someone else.

It's not like Joe's condition is all that different now than it was 6 months or a year ago. The fact that he's been lying, the campaign has been lying, the media has been lying right to your face for years doesn't change anything.

 

[franklinman]

Your House Speaker says it will be an issue.

Yes, but he is a complete brain dead idiot.

 

[MitchLL]

29.

You can bet your ass the RNC had a conference call with every GOP Governor on Monday.

 

[jneffer]

Not sure how one can cry about the day democracy almost died... and how one man and one party wants to end democracy, then turn around 3.5 years later and a presidential candidate is installed not elected. Either the states that already had primaries should have emergency primaries if that's written into their voting laws, if not, the people have spoken, and they chose Joe. His name should be on the ballot and people can write-in someone else.

It's not like Joe's condition is all that different now than it was 6 months or a year ago. The fact that he's been lying, the campaign has been lying, the media has been lying right to your face for years doesn't change anything.

people equating the overturning of the results of an election based on no evidence at all with replacing a candidate prior to the official nomination will never be satisfied and aren't really worth taking seriously

 

[KFsdisciple]

people equating the overturning of the results of an election based on no evidence at all with replacing a candidate prior to the official nomination will never be satisfied and aren't really worth taking seriously

Joe dropping out doesn't change the fact he won those states. It was the party's responsibility to fairly access Joe's capacity to be president for 4 more years (pause) and step-in before he won a bunch of states in a legal, proper manner. Joe got 14 million votes that now mean nothing? Sure that sounds like democracy to me.

 

[B1GDeal]

Seeing how there isn't a democrat officially nominated until the convention in August nobody has locked up anything so these challenges will fail if even attempted.

 

[KFsdisciple]

Seeing how there isn't a democrat officially nominated until the convention in August nobody has locked up anything so these challenges will fail if even attempted.

So why have a primary every 4 years? Just have the conventions and let the delegates decide who your nominee is going to be, because democracy or something.

 

[BioHawk]

First, based on what laws? The parties get to determine their candidates however they want. In this case, the elected delegates, the people you are actually voting for in a primary, voted for Harris. So, the next time someone claims that the states will try to keep her off the ballots if they can't point to a single actual law that justifies a way to make that possible then I'm just going to disregard that person as another partisan nut job who doesn't know wtf they are talking about.

It's going to be awesome to watch the Supreme Court invent laws again to make whatever twisted, f**ked up reasoning the GOP comes up with to justify this crap though.

 

[KFsdisciple]

According to the Heritage Foundation's research, Georgia, Wisconsin and Nevada may prove particularly difficult for Democrats.

It said that only death can remove a candidate's name from a Wisconsin ballot, while Nevada's deadline for changing candidates ended at 5 p.m. on the fourth Friday of June - in this case, June 28, 2024.

It also allows special consideration beyond that deadline if the candidate is mentally incapacitated - a potential legal minefield that could consume months of legal argument.

Georgia allows candidates to withdraw up to 60 days before an election. If Biden withdrew after that date, which would be in early September, his name would remain on the ballot, but votes for him wouldn't count.

The Heritage Foundation states that some other states have no procedures to guide the replacement process, which would also open up huge areas of potential litigation by Republicans.

 

[Whiskeydeltadeltatango]

I'm old enough to remember when Ohio bent the rules TO put Biden on, but, why not panic about this?


Fear is the motivator of the left.

 

[Aardvark86]

Not sure how one can cry about the day democracy almost died... and how one man and one party wants to end democracy, then turn around 3.5 years later and a presidential candidate is installed not elected. Either the states that already had primaries should have emergency primaries if that's written into their voting laws, if not, the people have spoken, and they chose Joe. His name should be on the ballot and people can write-in someone else.

It's not like Joe's condition is all that different now than it was 6 months or a year ago. The fact that he's been lying, the campaign has been lying, the media has been lying right to your face for years doesn't change anything.

Oh, I don't think it's antidemocratic, in that the elected delegates who will be attending will be voting for their choice of their party's candidate. The fact that the candidate they were pledged to pulled out doesn't change that, though I agree the "back room pressure" applied to him was certainly undemocratic. (While I congratulate KH on her fundraising haul, I'd also note that it's sort of QED as to the fact that the back room pressure from elite donors is precisely how this occurred.) I assume it will be subject to more sophisticated messaging from the R's than we've seen so far.

The pervasive lying is another matter entirely, which "should" be embarassing to anyone but the worst of whataboutist apologists, and
"should" be the subject of its own messaging.

 

[jneffer]

First, based on what laws? The parties get to determine their candidates however they want. In this case, the elected delegates, the people you are actually voting for in a primary, voted for Harris. So, the next time someone claims that the states will try to keep her off the ballots if they can't point to a single actual law that justifies a way to make that possible then I'm just going to disregard that person as another partisan nut job who doesn't know wtf they are talking about.

It's going to be awesome to watch the Supreme Court invent laws again to make whatever twisted, f**ked up reasoning the GOP comes up with to justify this crap though.

it's just the constant need to be aggrieved for themselves or on behalf of someone else

cant' tell you how or why...but the democrats are being unfair to someone...somewhere

 

[peacehawk]

Won’t be an issue in AZ as thanks to the MAGAts, we have a D Governor, AG, and Secretary of State.

 

[Rifler]

Silly for R's to be floating this, silly for D's to be getting exorcised about it.

R's aren't floating this,.. It's a dead issue now that Biden has formally resigned the nomination,... Yes. D's are silly.