#been saying this since he became Trump's vp

[qqueenofhades]

Re: the post you reblogged about Bush. I'm 21 and tbh feel like I can only vote for Bernie, can you explain if/why I shouldn't? Thanks and sorry if this is dumb or anything.

Oh boy. Okay, I’ll do my best here. Note that a) this will get long, and b) I’m old, Tired, and I‘m pretty sure my brain tried to kill me last night. Since by nature I am sure I will say something Controversial ™, if anyone reads this and feels a deep urge to inform me that I am Wrong, just… mark it down as me being Wrong and move on with your life. But also, really, you should read this and hopefully think about it. Because while I’m glad you asked this question, it feels like there’s a lot in your cohort who won’t, and that worries me. A lot.

First, not to sound utterly old-woman-in-a-rocking-chair ancient, people who came of age/are only old enough to have Obama be the first president that they really remember have no idea how good they had it. The world was falling the fuck apart in 2008 (not coincidentally, after 8 years of Bush). We came within a flicker of the permanent collapse of the global economy. The War on Terror was in full roar, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were at their height, we had Dick Cheney as the cartoon supervillain before we had any of Trump’s cohort, and this was before Chelsea Manning or Edward Snowden had exposed the extent of NSA/CIA intelligence-gathering/American excesses or there was any kind of public debate around the fact that we were all surveilled all the time. And the fact that a brown guy named Barack Hussein Obama was elected in this climate seems, and still seems tbh, kind of amazing. And Obama was certainly not a Perfect President ™. He had to scale back a lot of planned initiatives, he is notorious for expanding the drone strike/extrajudicial assassination program, he still subscribed to the overall principles of neoliberalism and American exceptionalism, etc etc. There is valid criticism to be made as to how the hopey-changey optimistic rhetoric stacked up against the hard realities of political office. And yet…. at this point, given what we’re seeing from the White House on a daily basis, the depth of the parallel universe/double standards is absurd.

Because here’s the thing. Obama, his entire family, and his entire administration had to be personally/ethically flawless the whole time (and they managed that – not one scandal or arrest in eight years, against the legions of Trumpistas now being convicted) because of the absolute frothing depths of Republican hatred, racial conspiracy theories, and obstruction against him. (Remember Merrick Garland and how Mitch McConnell got away with that, and now we have Gorsuch and Kavanaugh on the Supreme Court? Because I remember that). If Obama had pulled one-tenth of the shit, one-twentieth of the shit that the Trump administration does every day, he would be gone. It also meant that people who only remember Obama think he was typical for an American president, and he wasn’t. Since about… Jimmy Carter, and definitely since Ronald Reagan, the American people have gone for the Trump model a lot more than the Obama model. Whatever your opinion on his politics or character, Obama was a constitutional law professor, a community activist, a neighborhood organizer and brilliant Ivy League intellectual who used to randomly lie awake at night thinking about income inequality. Americans don’t value intellectualism in their politicians; they just don’t. They don’t like thinking that “the elites” are smarter than them. They like the folksy populist who seems fun to have a beer with, and Reagan/Bush Senior/Clinton/Bush Junior sold this persona as hard as they possibly could. As noted in said post, Bush Junior (or Shrub as the late, great Molly Ivins memorably dubbed him) was Trump Lite but from a long-established political family who could operate like an outwardly civilized human.

The point is: when you think Obama was relatively normal (which, again, he wasn’t, for any number of reasons) and not the outlier in a much larger pattern of catastrophic damage that has been accelerated since, again, the 1980s (oh Ronnie Raygun, how you lastingly fucked us!), you miss the overall context in which this, and which Trump, happened. Like most left-wingers, I don’t agree with Obama’s recent and baffling decision to insert himself into the 2020 race and warn the Democratic candidates against being too progressive or whatever he was on about. I think he was giving into the same fear that appears to be motivating the remaining chunk of Joe Biden’s support: that middle/working-class white America won’t go for anything too wild or that might sniff of Socialism, and that Uncle Joe, recalled fondly as said folksy populist and the internet’s favorite meme grandfather from his time as VP, could pick up the votes that went to Trump last time. And that by nature, no one else can.

The underlying belief is that these white voters just can’t support anything too “un-American,” and that by pushing too hard left, Democratic candidates risk handing Trump a second term. Again: I don’t agree and I think he was mistaken in saying it. But I also can’t say that Obama of all people doesn’t know exactly the strength of the political machine operating against the Democratic Party and the progressive agenda as a whole, because he ran headfirst into it for eight years. The fact that he managed to pass any of his legislative agenda, usually before the Tea Party became a thing in 2010, is because Democrats controlled the House and Senate for the first two years of his first term. He was not perfect, but it was clear that he really did care (just look up the pictures of him with kids). He installed smart, efficient, and scandal-free people to do jobs they were qualified for. He gave us Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor to join RBG on the Supreme Court. All of this seems… like a dream.

That said: here we are in a place where Biden, Bernie Sanders, and Elizabeth Warren are the front-runners for the Democratic nomination (and apparently Pete Buttigieg is getting some airplay as a dark horse candidate, which… whatever). The appeal of Biden is discussed above, and he sure as hell is not my favored candidate (frankly, I wish he’d just quit). But Sanders and Warren are 85% - 95% similar in their policy platforms. The fact that Michael “50 Billion Dollar Fortune” Bloomberg started rattling his chains about running for president is because either a Sanders or Warren presidency terrifies the outrageously exploitative billionaire capitalist oligarchy that runs this country and has been allowed to proceed essentially however the fuck they like since… you guessed it, the 1980s, the era of voodoo economics, deregulation, and the free market above all. Warren just happens to be ten years younger than Sanders and female, and Sanders’ age is not insignificant. He’s 80 years old and just had a heart attack, and there’s still a year to go to the election. It’s also more than a little eye-rolling to describe him as the only progressive candidate in the race, when he’s an old white man (however much we like and approve of his policy positions). And here’s the thing, which I think is a big part of the reason why this polarized ideological purity internet leftist culture mistrusts Warren:

She may have changed her mind on things in the past.

Scary, right? I sound like I’m being facetious, but I’m not. An argument I had to read with my own two eyes on this godforsaken hellsite was that since Warren became a Democrat around the time Clinton signed Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, she sekritly hated gay people and might still be a corporate sellout, so on and etcetera. (And don’t even get me STARTED on the fact that DADT, coming a few years after the height of the AIDS crisis which was considered God’s Judgment of the Icky Gays, was the best Clinton could realistically hope to achieve, but this smacks of White Gay Syndrome anyway and that is a whole other kettle of fish.) Bernie has always demonstrably been a democratic socialist, and: good for him. I’m serious. But because there’s the chance that Warren might not have thought exactly as she does now at any point in her life, the hysterical and paranoid left-wing elements don’t trust that she might not still secretly do so. (Zomgz!) It’s the same element that’s feeding cancel culture and “wokeness.” Nobody can be allowed to have shifted or grown in their opinions or, like a functional, thoughtful, non-insane adult, changed their beliefs when presented with compelling evidence to the contrary. To the ideological hordes, any hint of uncertainty or past failure to completely toe the line is tantamount to heresy. Any evidence of any other belief except The Correct One means that this person is functionally as bad as Trump. And frankly, it’s only the Sanders supporters who, just as in 2016, are threatening to withhold their vote in the general election if their preferred candidate doesn’t win the primary, and indeed seem weirdly proud about it.

OK, boomer Bernie or Buster.

Here’s the thing, the thing, the thing: there is never going to be an American president free of the deeply toxic elements of American ideology. There just won’t be. This country has been built how it has for 250 years, and it’s not gonna change. You are never going to have, at least not in the current system, some dream candidate who gets up there and parrots the left-wing talking points and attacks American imperialism, exceptionalism, ravaging global capitalism, military and oil addiction, etc. They want to be elected as leader of a country that has deeply internalized and taken these things to heart for its entire existence, and most of them believe it to some degree themselves. So this groupthink white liberal mentality where the only acceptable candidate is this Perfect Non-Problematic robot who has only ever had one belief their entire lives and has never ever wavered in their devotion to doctrine has really gotten bad. The Democratic Party would be considered… maybe center/mild left in most other developed countries. It’s not even really left-wing by general standards, and Sanders and Warren are the only two candidates for the nomination who are even willing to go there and explicitly put out policy proposals that challenge the systematic structure of power, oppression, and exploitation of the late-stage capitalist 21st century. Warren has the billionaires fussed, and instead of backing down, she’s doubling down. That’s part of why they’re so scared of her. (And also misogyny, because the world is depressing like that.) She is going head-on after picking a fight with some of the worst people on the planet, who are actively killing the rest of us, and I don’t know about you, but I like that.

Of course: none of this will mean squat if she (or the eventual Democratic winner, who I will vote for regardless of who it is, but as you can probably tell, she’s my ride or die) don’t a) win the White House and then do as they promised on the campaign trail, and b) don’t have a Democratic House and Senate willing to have a backbone and pass the laws. Even Nancy Pelosi, much as she’s otherwise a badass, held off on opening a formal impeachment inquiry into Trump for months out of fear it would benefit him, until the Ukraine thing fell into everyone’s laps. The Democrats are really horrible at sticking together and voting the party line the way Republicans do consistently, because Democrats are big-tent people who like to think of themselves as accepting and tolerant of other views and unwilling to force their members’ hands. The Republicans have no such qualms (and indeed, judging by their enabling of Trump, have no qualms at all). 

The modern American Republican party has become a vehicle for no-holds-barred power for rich white men at the expense of absolutely everything and everyone else, and if your rationale is that you can’t vote for the person opposing Donald Goddamn Trump is that you’re just not vibing with them on the language of that one policy proposal… well, I’m glad that you, White Middle Class Liberal, feel relatively safe that the consequences of that decision won’t affect you personally. Even if we’re due to be out of the Paris Climate Accords one day after the 2020 election, and the issue of climate change now has the most visibility it’s ever had after years of big-business, Republican-led efforts to deny and discredit the science, hey, Secret Corporate Shill, am I right? Can’t trust ‘er. Let’s go have a craft beer.

As has been said before: vote as far left as you want in the primary. Vote your ideology, vote whatever candidate you want, because the only way to make actual, real-world change is to do that. The huge, embedded, all-consuming and horrible system in which we operate is not just going to suddenly be run by fairy dust and happy thoughts overnight. Select candidates that reflect your values exactly, be as picky and ideologically militant as you want. That’s the time to do that! Then when it comes to the general election:

America is a two-party system. It sucks, but that’s the case. Third-party votes, or refraining from voting because “it doesn’t matter” are functionally useless at best and actively harmful at worst.

Either the Democratic candidate or Donald Trump will win the 2020 election.

There is absolutely no length that the Republican/GOP machine, and its malevolent allies elsewhere, will not go to in order to secure a Trump victory. None.

Any talk whatsoever about “progressive values” or any kind of liberal activism, coupled with a course of action that increases the possibility of a Trump victory, is hypocritical at best and actively malicious at worst.

This is why I found the Democratic response to Obama’s “don’t go too wild” comments interesting. Bernie doubled down on the fact that his plans have widespread public support, and he’s right. (Frankly, the fact that Sanders and Warren are polling at the top, and the fact that they’re politicians and would not be crafting these campaign messages if they didn’t know that they were being positively received, says plenty on its own). Warren cleverly highlighted and praised Obama’s accomplishments in office (i.e. the Affordable Care Act) and didn’t say squat about whether she agreed or disagreed with him, then went right back to campaigning about why billionaires suck. And some guy named Julian Castro basically blew Obama off and claimed that “any Democrat” could beat Trump in 2020, just by nature of existing and being non-insane.

This is very dangerous! Do not be Julian Castro!

As I said in my tags on the Bush post: everyone assumed that sensible people would vote for Kerry in 2004. Guess what happened? Yeah, he got Swift Boated. The race between Obama and McCain in 2008, even after those said nightmare years of Bush, was very close until the global crash broke it open in Obama’s favor, and Sarah Palin was an actual disqualifier for a politician being brazenly incompetent and unprepared. (Then again, she was a woman from a remote backwater state, not a billionaire businessman.) In 2012, we thought Corporate MormonBot Mitt Fuggin’ Romney was somehow the worst and most dangerous candidate the Republicans could offer. In 2016, up until Election Day itself, everyone assumed that HRC was a badly flawed candidate but would win anyway. And… we saw how that worked out. Complacency is literally deadly.

I was born when Reagan was still president. I’m just old enough to remember the efforts to impeach Clinton over forcing an intern to give him a BJ in the Oval Office (This led by the same Republicans making Donald Trump into a darling of the evangelical Christian right wing.) I’m definitely old enough to remember 9/11 and how America lost its mind after that, and I remember the Bush years. And, obviously, the contrast with Obama, the swing back toward Trump, and everything that has happened since. We can’t afford to do this again. We’re hanging by a thread as it is, and not just America, but the entire planet.

So yes. By all means, vote for Sanders in the primary. Then when November 3, 2020 rolls around, if you care about literally any of this at all, hold your nose if necessary and vote straight-ticket Democrat, from the president, to the House and Senate, to the state and local offices. I cannot put it more strongly than that.

[ordinaryschmuck]

The Bright Side of 2020

It's easy to say that 2020 was an awful year. Because it was. 2020 is easily one of the worst years in a while, filled with death, depression, economic collapse, a pandemic, and even the word 'poggers' becoming a thing. 

Seriously, what the hell is 'poggers?!' The more I see it, the less it makes sense to me!

2020 was filled to the brim with so many awful moments. In no way should we forget any of it, and heaven forbid that we ignore all of it.

But that doesn't mean we should let the bad overshadow the good.

As we enter the last month of the dumpster fire that is this year, let us look over the good that came from it. Because I don't want to end 2020 with a whimper, but at least with a little glimmer of hope.

So here is my list:

Joe Biden has been elected as our new president, and the entire world had collectively celebrated. Sure, Trump is reacting to the news like a toddler who won't share his ball and decided to run home crying to his mommy. But by January, we will never talk about this man again, and America will remember him as he was back in 2016: A bad joke that wasn’t that funny to begin with, and has been annoying to hear since the beginning.

Our new vice president will not only be the first female VP but will also be a VP who is an African American, an Asian American, and an Indian American. It doesn't make up for the years when old white dudes were in charge, but it's a start. So let's take a moment to appreciate our new VP, shall we...That was nice. Next!

Voice actors who are people of color are given more of a chance to voice characters who are POC as well. It gets better as white VAs are getting replaced with VAs with the correct background to perform as specific characters. You can make the argument that a voice is a voice and that it doesn't matter who the face behind it is as long as the performance is still good. But if you're going to go the progressive route anyway, then why not go all the way with hiring actors to portray their own race/culture?

Several comedians kept us laughing despite how the year got worse and worse and how emotionally drained they were because of it. Laughter is the best medicine and boy, does it help that I can still laugh off the pain this year brought.

On a darker note: Online personalities Ryan Haywood from Achievement Hunter and Adam Kovic from Funhaus were revealed to dealing in sexual misconducts with their fans. On the surface, this seems like a bad thing. And with the betrayal and heartbreak that came from it, it certainly seems like so. But look at it this way: These monsters would have continued to do such awful things, regardless if they got caught this year or not. And while it pains me to know so many good videos are going to be deleted, some of which helped me on days that I needed a laugh the most, it is good knowing that Haywood and Kovic won't get away with what they did again. Because we won’t let them.

Back to a lighter note: A rare yellow turtle was discovered in India, and I am in love with this thing! I thought it was a mustard stain at first when I saw the photo, but it's a turtle. And it's adorable. And I will not rest until I find it and give it cuddles it deserves. Which is all of the cuddles.

So many incredible LGBTQ+ representations were given this year! Yes, that whole thing with Dean and Castiel was unforgettable as much as it is unforgivable. But if you ignore the live-action side of things and look at animation, you will find things are brighter than a rainbow over a pride parade. Catra and Adora finally kissed in a moment that was both satisfying and beautiful. Poison Ivy and Harley Quinn became a couple in Harley Quinn, giving comic fans something they wanted for years. Adventure Time fans were given a forty-five-minute episode filled with adorable moment after adorable moment of Marceline and Princess Bubblegum being an operant couple. Kipo and the Age of Wonderbeasts has a character who explicitly says, "I'm gay," and even gets a boyfriend in the end (I think. I haven't finished the show yet). And Disney has finally, F**KING FINALLY, taken steps in the right direction with their new hit: The Owl House. A series where the main character is a bisexual Latina who has a same-sex love interest that has an explicit crush on the main character.

And while we're on the topic of entertainment: HOLY S**T, have you seen the quality content we got this year?

Amazing animated shows came out with hit after hit with series like The Midnight Gospel, The Owl House, Kipo and the Age of Wonderbeasts, Central Park, and many, many more. Shows that are hilarious, beautifully animated, and tell compelling stories with equally compelling characters.

Adventure Time, Animaniacs, Eddsworld, Phineas and Ferb, and Crash Bandicoot came back with revivals, reboots, specials, and long-awaited sequels that were not just as good as they were before leaving, but in some ways, are even better.

A recorded performance of Hamilton can now be seen on Disney+, meaning that theater kids can finally see the show they have been obsessing over since that soundtrack came out.

HBOmax took shows from DC's piece of s**t streaming service, meaning that fans can watch Doom Patrol and Harley Quinn on a service that's actually worth the price...Titans can suck a dick. But Doom Patrol and Harley Quinn! Doom Patrol and Harley Quinn!

Avatar: The Last Airbender and Community is on Netflix now...so go watch them.

Spider-Man: Miles Morales is a game that stars the famous bi-racial Spider-Man, that also shows off the color and diversity that is present in the people of Harlem. And given what happened this year, that is definitely appreciated. Not to mention that I’ve heard it's a fun game on top of that!

And that's just the s**t I can think of off the top of my head. There are plenty more good things that came this year, some of which I'm sure is better than what I put on this list. All a person has to do is do some research, which I encourage you to do yourself.

Don't let 2020 win by beating you down. Instead, let's focus on the bright side to stop the dark shadow of a year from taking over.

And I'm begging you: Keep this list going! It's not a bad thing to give people good news for a change.

[somethingusefulfromflorida]

Who do you feel would be the strongest Democrat to run statewide in Florida in 2022? I'm probably thinking about the governor's race in particular, since it's hard to imagine anyone beating Rubio next year.

Unless Democrats pull a California and run a celebrity, there’s really nobody who stands a chance in 2022.  There are no major contenders this cycle, no household names, no recognizable faces, nobody with real gravitas.  2018 was our best shot with Andrew Gillum, the popular young progressive mayor of our state capital, and he came closer than any Democrat this century, but the usual Republican fuckery put him at a disadvantage he couldn’t escape from.  There’s too much voter suppression, especially in Miami-Dade, Broward, and Palm Beach Counties, Democratic strongholds which are starting to lean red because Cubans are the only Hispanic demographics who consistently vote Republican.

Of the candidates who have declared their intention to run, none have Wikipedia articles, so that tells you what you need to know about them right off the bat.  Of the candidates who expressed interest but haven’t declared yet, I think the one with the best shot is ironically Charlie Crist of all people; he was our governor from 2007 to 2011, a Republican who became an independent at the end of his term.  He was defeated in 2010 by Prick Scott the Bald Bastard, and became a Democrat shortly thereafter; he is now a congressman.  I could see him maybe, MAYBE making a comeback to retake his seat for another term, but that would be such a downgrade for the Democrats from 2018 that they would still get their asses handed to them.  What does electability even mean?  Anyone is electable if they have enough money!  Donald Trump proved that.  Charlie Crist is a compromise candidate, a middle-of-the-road nobody who is safe but boring, and being boring is the worst thing a candidate can be.

If I had to pick someone that might stand a chance and is moderately popular, I would go with Val Demings.  She’s a congresswoman who defeated a republican incumbent in 2016, was an impeachment manager against Trump in his first trial, and a contender for VP under Biden, though he chose the more nationally recognizable Harris instead.  I think that given enough support from the state and national party, she could give DeSantis a run for his money, but we have a Republican Secretary of State and a Republican Attorney General, so unless DeSantis makes a HUGE stumble in the next few months and gives it to the Democrats in a landslide, I don’t expect the Democrats to eke by with a victory.  If it looks like it will be at all close, the Republicans will close more polling places and shorten early voting periods in blue counties, disenfranchising black and Hispanic voters en masse.  They’ll even go so far as to stop counting votes, or “lose” boxes of votes which will be found after the election has already been certified; there’s been systemic fuckery since Jeb Bush gave Florida to his brother in 2000, and I don’t see it ending anytime soon, especially since every statewide Republican is a trumpist who thinks the election was stolen from him.  They won’t let a Democrat win quietly ever again, they’ll go down fighting whether they lose by an inch or a mile.

DeSantis is ridiculously popular with Republicans; he’s more of a Donald Trump Jr than the real Donald Trump Jr is!  If Trump doesn’t run again in 2024, DeSantis will be a frontrunner.  It’s like in 2020 we knew it would be between Joe Biden and Bernie Sanders; all the rest were just spoilers.  In 2024 it will be DeSantis vs someone even younger.  Not Cruz, probably someone like Josh Hawley or Marjorie Taylor Green.  That wasn’t your question, but it’s important to understand that if he’s a shoo-in for 2024, he’s definitely a shoo-in for 2022.  Barring some major Roy Moore-esque scandal, he’s probably gonna get re-elected (though if it didn’t appear in 2018, it’s not likely to appear in 2022).  Georgia may have shifted slightly bluer, but Florida is definitely shifting redder.  And that’s not to say that Georgia is now some Democratic stronghold; 2020 was an anomaly, it won’t be repeated, especially after the districts are gerrymandered even worse than they are now.

If Texas is the Republican California, then Florida is the Republican New York.

[raisingsupergirl]

I Didn't Vote

Yep, you heard it right. On 11/3/20, I didn't go anywhere near the polls. I woke up, went to work, went home, and went to bed. Sure, I'd had a long day, but I certainly had a chance to swing by and punch my ticket. I thought about doing it. From the time I woke up I thought about it. But I just couldn't bring myself to do it, and I didn't really know why. Even the next day I couldn't figure it out. And I've been mulling it over since then. I still don't have a satisfying reason, but at least I have a reason. Actually, I have several.

Okay, let's get this out of the way. My first reason for not voting is ignorance. No, not on the part of the political candidates, or social media, or you. I didn't vote because I'm ignorant. I know so little about the two old guys (and there was a woman, too, right? That third-party so-and-so?) fighting to "rule" our country. Here's what I do know… First, Trump: He's filthy rich. He owns some companies (honestly couldn't tell you which ones). He had a TV show (can't remember the name) and a tower. He has been our president for the past four years, and he did some things that veterans and conservatives like (I can't tell you with certainty even one thing that he's responsible for changing). He's a republican, but I think he used to be a democrat. I also think his wife's name is Ivanka, he has a daughter, and his VP is Mike Pence. Lastly, people either love him or hate him, which has only further divided our nation. He comes off at different times as a megalomaniac, a bully, and an idiot (though he may not be any of those things. Who knows?). He has no filter, he has Twitter, and he claims that everyone else is out to lie, steal, and cheat to make him look bad, which is ironic, because his ridiculous hair does that all on its own. And now on to the other guy.

I actually forget Joe Biden's name a lot. I want to call him Pence or Kerry or even McCain. Seriously, though that's not saying much. I'm horrible with names. But I also forget what he looks like. When I think about him, all I see is Jim Carrey. Oh! That must be why I tend to call him Kerry in my head. Silly me. Now… what about him? He's a lifetime politician, he's democrat, and he's really old. I know that much. And his running mate is a woman, I think. Seems like he's probably going to be our next president based on the Electoral College, but I couldn't tell you with confidence what that means. And that's about it. Honestly, I don't know anymore than that.

But why don't I know more? Am I dumb? Well… I don't think so. I received a master's degree over a decade ago (with honors, no less), and I like to think I've only grown smarter and wiser since then. I love learning new things—ideas, talents, how things work. But one of those things just isn't politics. So, the second reason I didn't vote is disinterest (I'm racking up quite a compelling argument, I know). I've written about how I don't have a passion for BLM even though I think it's a worthy cause. And I think the main reason is because it falls under the "politics" umbrella in my mind. Too many people with too many emotions and not enough listening. I just don't have the stomach for it. I would rather spend my one life changing the world one person at a time. I'd rather show love to my neighbor (as a Christian), fix someone's knee pain (as a physical therapist), and help other people get their ideas across clearer (as an editor). And, if I'm being honest, all of the doom saying just doesn't scare me. I'm a country boy at heart, and I have simple needs. My family is small, and I have a cabin in the woods. I was sad when Y2K didn't happen. I love individual people, but I'm not a big fan of society. In large groups, people are mean and naïve. And so, fear just doesn't enter into the equation for me. Life is so much bigger than what the marketing campaigns claim.

If you haven't caught on yet, I'm a bit of a skeptic. I don't know if I was born that way, but I became aware of it in college. I didn't particularly like my research classes, but I loved learning how to read scientific articles. Specifically, I love learning how to recognize BS (Biased Science, that is…). I have a knack for seeing through it in any situation. I can generally tell when people are lying, and even though I don't know everything, I do understand concepts, theories, and ideas better than the average person. And like Aristotle (and Plato), I'm keenly aware of my own ignorance as well as that of others. I see how people embrace sensationalized "fake news" and assume causality just because of correlation. Everyone does it. I do it. But I'm aware of it. I'm aware of social media algorithms, of herd mentality, of confirmation bias. And so, the third reason I didn't vote is because I assume everyone is either lying or buying into lies (lying and bullying are my two biggest pet peeves, by the way). And we've already established that I don't have the time or the energy (or the mental capacity) to learn the truth of every political topic and use those truths to set everyone straight. But hey, at least I'm honest…

Remember when I said earlier that fear didn't factor into the equation for me? Yeah, obviously that’s not true. I mean, sure, I'm not afraid of societal collapse or the end of the world. But I'm obviously afraid of being wrong. We've established that I don't know much about Trump or Kerr—er… Biden. That I'm ignorant about politics, in general. And we know that I'm a skeptic—that I have to come to my own conclusions. And most of the time that looks like stubbornness. I hate being told what to do. I hate being micromanaged. I hate the virus on my computer that sets Bing as my default search engine instead of Google. I hate the alarm on my wife's van that makes me wear my seat belt. And I hate the Facebook banners that keep telling me it's my duty to vote. I'm a grown boy. I can make those decisions all on my own. And I will not blindly trust a random source with dubious intentions to make those decisions for me. And, as much as I love my friends, I don't buy their claims that it's my duty to vote, either. Countless brave men and women did not die for my DUTY to vote. They died for my freedom to do so. Same as my freedom to be a Christian. Which means I'm also free to NOT vote.

But why wouldn't I WANT to vote? Because I'm afraid of whom I would have voted for. I'm aware of where I live and what my local culture thinks. In short, I voted for Trump last time, and I probably would have voted for him this time. And I couldn't stomach that thought (side note: I do have one regret, and that’s not voting local. I do know people personally who were running for office--as well as local bills--but I missed the opportunity to vote on things that I DO know about because of my fear of voting for the “wrong” president). It’s not that I doubted that Trump would do positive things while in office (even though, as I said, I'm not sure what he actually did the past four years…), but I'm just so tired of everybody acting insane. There's a reason I don't have cable. There's a reason I only get on social media to post pictures and check my notifications. And while I don't buy into all the sensationalism claiming the president has ultimate power, I do believe that he has a microphone. And a Twitter account. And even though our government is based on checks and balances, our media definitely isn't. If Biden is, in fact, our president for the next four years, my only hope is that he'll keep his mouth shut.

Okay, everyone's mad at me now. And that's okay. I put myself out there. I was honest about my ignorance, my bias, and my fear, which is more than I can say about most other people (presidents included). And maybe my honesty will compel others (you?) to reevaluate the "truths" they (you?) assume are self-evident. It's taken me four years, but I finally understand what "Make America Great Again" means. What would it take for our country to be great? Accountability. That's it. If every man, woman, and child did everything possible to give back to our country, we WOULD be great. If we worked hard to repair crumbling buildings, if we painted breathtaking murals, if we learned classical philosophy and used it shape our thoughts, if we refused to blame someone else for our unhappiness, if we did everything in our INDIVIDUAL power to contribute to the greater whole, if we truly loved our neighbors and gave them the shirt off of our back regardless of their political leanings… THAT would make us great. Right now, we're all so divided. We're all so afraid and easily manipulated. I've chosen to put my time and energy into things "smaller" than politics, but that doesn't mean I don't care about the future of my country. Quite the opposite, in fact. And hopefully, when I'm dead and gone, my tombstone won't read, "The guy who didn't vote in the 2020 presidential election."

[niafrazier]

Making the Case for Beto O’Rourke

Full disclaimer: Beto is one of my top picks amongst the 2020 democratic field as of now. I’m a supporter but am in no way affiliated with his official campaign.

At a certain point, Beto O’Rourke was hailed by the media as basically the second coming of Obama, RFK, JFK, [insert any popular democratic figure from this past century… oh and Abe Lincoln]. After he unsuccessfully attempted to unseat Ted Cruz in the senate race, many people across the country were calling him to run for the presidency. He even surged in polling being just behind Joe Biden and Bernie Sanders, both who virtually have 100% name recognition. His senate race garnered national attention and even caught Oprah’s attention (she practically begged him to run on her show FFS). Many (including me) grew to admire his authentic, organic, and down-to-earth approach to politics, which is especially refreshing to see given the fact that everything seems so contrived nowadays. So, he wrestled with his decision thoughtfully and eventually came around to the idea, officially tossing his hat into the ring on March 14th, 2019. But now? Right out the gate, the narrative has shifted, and to the mainstream media pundits and Twittersphere, he is seen as an empty-suited, entitled, misogynistic, arrogant dude dripping with white male privilege. What changed?  How is it that the media, the very one that contributed to the rise of “Betomania,” subsequently went into a frenzy and poo-pooed all over his rollout? The faux outrage, double standards, and cynicism directed at Beto by opinion writers, pundits, etc. have basically motivated me to give my own takes on the most common criticisms I’ve seen thus far. So, here we go:

 “ ‘Man, I’m just born to be in it?’ ”

I’m not gonna lie, taking a look at the Vanity Fair cover and seeing that quote was a facepalm moment. As predicted, this quote sparked outrage fairly quickly… given the optics of a privileged straight white man joining a race of several qualified women and POC… Understandably so.  However, upon reading through the whole article, I was able to grasp the essence of Beto’s words. Here’s what he says leading up to his declaration, expressing urgency:

 “This is the fight of our lives…not the fight-of-my-political-life kind of crap. But, like, this is the fight of our lives as Americans, and as humans, I’d argue.”

And now here’s the full quote: “Man, I’m just born to be in it, and want to do everything I humanly can for this country at this moment.”

 He’s not so much saying that he was born to be in a position of power, rather, he’s expressing that during such dire times, especially in U.S. democracy, he could not in good conscience be complacent and not take action. Just as he was drawn to serve his district in El Paso as a 6 year city council member and a 3-term congressman, he believes that at this moment, he has a purpose to serve the whole nation by being as actively involved in the national discussion as possible—to stand up to bigotry and divisiveness displayed by the current administration of the White House. Beto basically confirmed what I had thought after further inspection when he clarified his statement later (Google it. I’m having trouble with my hyperlinks right now). Could he have worded it better? Sure. I just reject the notion that this one gaffe is supposed to sum him up as an egotistical maniac… please. 

“He adds absolutely no value to the race”

This is arbitrary depending on what your key issues are, but I’m gonna give my take on why I think he’s an excellent addition to the race. So, I’ve been intrigued about the possibility of an O’Rourke presidential run since he’s hinted at it back in November. I really didn’t know much about him until toward the end of Midterm season, but the more I learned, the more impressed I became. (Side note: it was this clip that first caught my full attention.) What really fueled my interest in Beto though, was his stance on immigration. As a first generation Nigerian American, this topic is pretty personal to me. My parents were fortunate enough to have the opportunity to immigrate to America and raise me and my three other siblings. However, I’ve also seen firsthand the difficulty of not only getting through with the ridiculous process but also assimilating into this country. For so long, the Democrats haven’t really made immigration a central issue, until the Trump administration hijacked it and pushed the Overton window all the way to the right. With heightened xenophobia running rampant in this country as a result of this abhorrent presidency, it is pertinent that the Democrats not merely pay lip service to this issue any longer and take serious action. Beto has an advantage here: He’s grown up in and served as a U.S House Rep. in the border district of El Paso, also home to the largest binational community in the Northern hemisphere. He can add a lot to the national discussion and debate on the matter. When Trump came to El Paso, the local community organized a counter rally where Beto gave an impassioned speech about the border wall and immigration. It’s pretty long, but I highly recommend the watch. Furthermore, Beto has outlined a 10 point proposal on how best to approach the immigration issue, along with some facts about the border’s history, which you can read here. Immigration hasn’t really been a winning issue, and I honestly don’t see it being one in 2020. With that being said, I respect the fact that despite this, Beto has shown that this is an issue that he deeply cares about. If I’m being honest, even though comprehensive immigration reform is universally called for amongst Democrats, I doubt that anyone in the field will truly make immigration a main priority in their prospective presidencies. To me, Beto has shown that he will. Even if he doesn’t clinch the nomination, it still means a ton to me that we can have the potential to change the narrative of immigration in this country with serious discussion. With the way Beto is able to convey his message, I am hopeful for what’s to come.  

So, let’s talk about Texas. With the way Beto was able to energize the Democratic base in Texas, Democrats have the opportunity to put the Republican bastion state into play. With 38 electoral votes at stake, Texas is extremely crucial for the GOP. To put things in perspective, if Texas turned blue in 2016, President Hillary Clinton would have been a thing.

*Bonus: “He Lost to Ted Cruz lol… already a nonstarter”

Yes. But you know who else lost to Ted in Texas? Donald Trump. Cruz obliterated him in the Texas Republican primaries. I’m not saying Texas is guaranteed to turn blue with Beto on the ballot, but if we learned anything in 2016, it’s not to underestimate the possibility of seemingly blue or red states to flip at any given moment. The GOP has taken note of this. We’ve seen that Beto has a ton of appeal in Texas amongst not only Democrats but Never-Trump-Republicans and independents as well! If Beto is on that ballot, the GOP will most likely exhaust a ton of resources and money into Texas to keep it from going blue. This will only make other states that Trump won with the slimmest of margins vulnerable. Also… I find it disingenuous to make comparisons between Beto and other senators that hail from deeply blue states regarding electability. If Beto lost to Ted in California, then yeah… we could have a conversation about that.

“A woman running mate is his preference? Who does he think he is?”

The backlash on this surprised me, to be honest… Even Whoopi Goldberg blasted his ass for the statement on The View.  If I had to go on a whim here, I feel like it was the Vanity Fair article that sort of set the mood for Beto’s campaign thus far… because otherwise, I believe that this really wouldn’t have been a story. In fact, Beto is not the only male candidate to call for a woman VP. Cory Booker and Bernie Sanders have strongly hinted at choosing a woman running mate. Interestingly enough, I didn’t recall there being any backlash. Here are Beto’s full remarks on choosing a woman as his running mate:

"It would be very difficult not to select a woman with so many extraordinary women who are running right now, but first I would have to win and there's-- you know, this is as open as it has ever been."

This is very much the response I expected from Beto. Time and time again, he has openly acknowledged his privilege, even before getting hammered about it on social media. In the Vanity Fair article, he states his stance on lack of representation in Washington:

“The government at all levels is overly represented by white men,” he says. “That’s part of the problem, and I’m a white man. So if I were to run, I think it’s just so important that those who would comprise my team looked like this country. If I were to run, if I were to win, that my administration looks like this country. It’s the only way I know to meet that challenge.”

Furthermore, he is understanding and considerate of the fact that people are craving for diversity.  Here’s what he says:

“But I totally understand people who will make a decision [cast a vote in the primaries] based on the fact that almost every single one of our presidents has been a white man, and they want something different for this country. And I think that’s a very legitimate basis upon which to make a decision. Especially in the fact that there are some really great candidates out there right now.”

I know I don’t speak for all POC or women, but as a WOC myself, I took no issue to his statements. In fact, I appreciate his sensitivity to the issue and the fact that he doesn’t shy away from addressing uncomfortable topics in politics, such as race and representation.

Let’s just be glad he didn’t pull a Hickenlooper…. Jesus.

“Light on policy… but he stands on counters amirite?”

To discuss this point, it’s important to understand Beto’s campaign style. Beto is more like a blank canvass. What he does is first listen to people and their concerns, and then from there, he shapes his policies around that. He feels that this is the best way to serve the people. The point of his road trips and tours was not to lecture people on full fleshed policy proposals. There is debate on whether or not this is an effective strategy, and I do understand that people do like to know exactly what they’re signing up for before casting a vote. That’s why some people will more likely gravitate toward candidates like Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren who have been consistent in their messaging. However, I also think people underestimate the power of simply listening. Take these comments that a potential voter made concerning Beto’s ability to listen during his stop in South Carolina for example:

"I think if he keeps talking to the people and being able to listen, and not talk at the African-American voters. Talk to us. Listen to what we have to say… As long as you listen and then actually put forward ideas that are legitimate ideas to do things, then he will be fine.”

 While policy specifics are important, this is still the early stages of Beto’s campaign. Specifics, of course, will have to come at some point, especially when debates come around. Another critique I hear is Beto not having any policy proposals on his website yet. He’s not alone though.  Several candidates who have been running longer than he has don’t either. It’s also important to note that while people in the race most likely have been mulling a presidential run for several months or years, this has been something that came around to Beto as recent as November 2018. Stuff like this takes time. I think he has potential, however, in this area. For instance, as I mentioned earlier, he has put out a 10-point proposal on immigration. He also has a brief 5-point plan regarding criminal justice reform and legalization of marijuana. (Fun fact, he even coauthored a book concerning the legalization of weed.)  And it’s not like he hasn’t taken stances on issues ever either… I mean, he has a whole congressional record, and his townhalls give you an idea of where he stands on key issues. 

Oh... and about the countertops. Ugh. The fact that this really sparked outrage is comical. I’ve seen all sorts of takes on this from asserting his male dominance to throwing his youth in Bernie and Biden’s faces (lmao). At a campaign stop, the owner of the coffee shop that he was at asked him to stand on the countertop because people complained that they weren’t able to see Beto amongst the crowds and camera equipment (despite him being 6’4’’, ha). So then it just became a thing since. And he’s respectful about it in case anyone was wondering, lol. But there’s one thing I think both the Beto detractors and I can agree on: why tf is this getting media coverage? I do agree that there should be more coverage for other candidates concerning the real issues. However, the response shouldn’t be to go after Beto or chastise him for doing harmless acts during his campaign stops… Talk that up with the media. The ironic thing about this is that some of the media pundits complain about giving Beto so much coverage… all while giving Beto more coverage about the coverage he’s receiving… 🙄

So if you made it to the end of this extremely long effortpost, thank you. I actually had tons more to discuss but I’m not trying to make this into a novel. Anyways, I’ll say one last thing: 

Before going along with groupthink or engaging in the toxic political echo chamber that is Twitter, I implore you all to take a step back and actually get to know these candidates. Seek after local news outlets when candidates visit to get a feel of the vibes from locals. Go to Beto’s Facebook page and watch a town hall or two. You may come home with a different impression than what is portrayed in mainstream media. I can tell you that when I did this, the difference was night and day.  We have such an amazing field of contenders to choose from, and I’d hate for misinformation or bad-faith arguments to warp perceptions.   

[kerouacsrevenge-blog]

The true importance of good spelling

Gone are the times of secretarial composing pools and hardback work area word references. Presently, we lead quite a bit of our every day business by brisk flame finger-hitting on minor screens. Be that as it may, ever-littler innovation, and an expanding weight for ever-faster reaction times with the appearance of email, implies it's possible a grammatical error will crawl into our composed correspondence, or more awful, autocorrect will embed an improper word.

We've all been there. Sites and online distributions are covered with grammatical mistakes and even world pioneers once in a while don't delay to check tweets before squeezing 'send'. Who can overlook President Trump's scandalous covfefe tweet?

While some spelling slip-ups are innocuous and amusing, many aren't. The unassuming grammatical error not just has the ability to cause us to seem less insightful than we are. Poor spelling can likewise make disarray, lost clearness and meaning and in extraordinary cases it can cost millions in botched deals and occupation chances. It can possibly wreck client connections and even ruin your opportunity of discovering love on the web.

Yet, in the event that nobody is resistant and innovation is tending to make terrible spelling ordinary – take the ascent of 'content talk' shortenings for instance – is immaculate orthography no longer of significant worth? Also, is it OK to incorrectly spell words?

Spell-check: some portion of the issue

Spell-checking apparatuses may appear the appropriate response, however they additionally make another issue, cautions Anne Trubek, a specialist in new composition innovations and originator of Belt Publishing in the US territory of Ohio.

A long haul examination of blunders in college understudies' papers in the US observed that spelling used to be the most widely recognized mix-up. Be that as it may, the new number one mistake in understudy composing is presently utilizing the 'off-base word', clarifies Trubek. "Spell-check, as the greater part of us know, now and then rectifies spelling to an unexpected word in comparison to planned; if the composing isn't later edited, this PC made mistake goes unnoticed."

New innovations, for example, Apple's Siri work, additionally add to the rising aloofness toward right spelling. "On the off chance that you take a gander at the advancement of advances, regardless of whether it's plume pens to wellspring pens to ball direct pens toward consoles, the objective is to go quicker in light of the fact that you need to coordinate the pace of the thoughts in your mind," says Trubek. "Siri does that the best."

Autocorrection is most likely why an official White House press explanation as of late called for 'peach' in the Middle East, instead of 'harmony', says Simon Horobin, educator of English language and writing at the University of Oxford. "There are a wide range of issues that are going to come up in the event that you think you have a totally safeguard strategy. Regardless you must figure out how to spell," he says.

Already, composed material experienced a procedure of duplicate altering and editing to strip out blunders, yet now online substance goes up in all respects rapidly and there are frequently botches, says Horobin, writer of Does Spelling Matter? also, How English Became English. "Individuals see their transient messages as vaporous, however indeed, some portion of the capacity of the web is that it's consistently there so years after the fact individuals are as yet understanding it," he cautions.

Indeed, you're being judged

An overview of 5,500 American singles in 2016 by web based dating webpage Match.com found that 39% passed judgment on the reasonableness of up-and-comers by their grip of language structure – positioning that more significant than their grin, dress sense or even the condition of their teeth.

What's more, inquire about demonstrates that when individuals detect a spelling botch on a site they'll frequently leave it since they dread it's false.

Organizations know that a bit of their picture settles upon right composition and spelling, says Roslyn Petelin, partner teacher recorded as a hard copy at the University of Queensland in Australia. "Nothing can cause you to lose validity more rapidly and appear to be uneducated than a spelling botch, and that incorporates punctuations," she says.

There have been a few court cases rotating around spelling issues, she says, including the as of late settled instance of Taylor and Sons in the UK – where a multimillion-pound fight in court was pursued over a misstep including a solitary missing letter.

To be sure, an absence of a specific degree of capability might be a hindrance to finding a new line of work by any stretch of the imagination. A ton of managers in Australia presently request that applicants step through composition exams, says Petelin. "Youngsters leaving college may have all the privilege relational abilities, yet on the off chance that they can't compose intelligibly, managers won't give them an occupation."

A 2015 overview of UK managers utilizing by and large more than 1.2 million individuals, led for business hall bunch CBI, found that 37% of bosses were disappointed with gauges of proficiency and utilization of English among college and school leavers.

"It would be an error to tell youngsters that spelling doesn't make a difference in this industry, or in this occupation, in light of the fact that those fundamental abilities are a genuine door to different jobs or to creating different aptitudes," says Pippa Morgan, the CBI's head of instruction and abilities.

Spelling abilities are required like never before, she says. "In case you're managing client administration enquiries by means of Twitter, that may be the one connection clients have with that organization thus the nature of that message, the utilization of language, is extremely significant. It may be similarly as significant as a well disposed face in a store or voice over a telephone," says Morgan.

At the point when it's OK to change spelling

Now and again however, mistaken spelling, truncations or shortening of words is OK. "We for instance use 'business' in our tweeting as shorthand for business," Morgan says.

Furthermore, in certain unique circumstances, casual language is required. "On the off chance that you send an email to a 21-year-old VP that says 'Dear Mr Jones' and you're utilizing excessively formal word usage, that could be an issue," says Trubek.

Be that as it may, even – or maybe, particularly – in the realm of internet based life, self-broadcasted 'punctuation Nazis' will get out spelling botches. Others attempt to cover themselves when messaging from their cell phone by including a rider, for example, 'Sent on the fly by iphone. It would be ideal if you pardon any grammatical errors.'

Where once there were concurred shows for letter composing, the online condition has made another in the middle of type of talk where we don't exactly recognize what the standards are, says Horobin. While loosening up the guidelines of spelling, language structure and accentuation may be satisfactory on Twitter or in a Facebook post, email is trickier to measure, he says. "Email can some of the time sit between the formal and the casual."

Similarly as we adjust our discourse contingent upon whether we're giving an address, taking a prospective employee meeting, or visiting to companions, we have to change our utilization in the computerized world, says Horobin.

So what's the best way to deal with embrace meanwhile?

"Fail on utilizing the customary shows and ensuring that your spelling is adequate. Generally individuals will pass judgment on you on it. That is the cruel reality," says Horobin.

"It's smarter to be correct and to appear to be marginally particular and fusty than it is to attempt to seem to be progressively loose and wind up annoying someone since you've made a type of essential mistake that they feel incredibly unequivocally about." If you are looking for more information about spelling visit Spanish Spell Checker right away.

[patriotsnet]

How Did Republicans Do In The Primaries

New Post has been published on https://www.patriotsnet.com/how-did-republicans-do-in-the-primaries/

How Did Republicans Do In The Primaries

Allegations Of Inciting Violence

Inside Texas Politics: What did Texas Republicans, Democrats do right this election cycle?

Research suggests Trump’s rhetoric caused an increased incidence of hate crimes. During his 2016 campaign, he urged or praised physical attacks against protesters or reporters. Since then, some defendants prosecuted for hate crimes or violent acts cited Trump’s rhetoric in arguing that they were not culpable or should receive a lighter sentence. In May 2020, a nationwide review by ABC News identified at least 54 criminal cases from August 2015 to April 2020 in which Trump was invoked in direct connection with violence or threats of violence by mostly white men against mostly members of minority groups. On January 13, 2021, the House of Representatives impeached Trump for incitement of insurrection for his actions prior to the storming of the U.S. Capitol by a violent mob of his supporters who acted in his name.

Who Can Vote In A Primary

Only Democrats can vote in the Democratic Primary.

Only Republicans can vote in the Republican Primary.

The last day to register to vote before the Primary is the 4th Saturday before the Primary.

The deadline to change party affiliation before the Primary is the last Friday in May.

You can register to vote and change your party affiliation after the Primary.

Results Of The 2016 Republican Party Presidential Primaries

    Donald Trump

e

This article contains the results of the 2016 Republican presidential primaries and caucuses, the processes by which the Republican Party selected delegates to attend the 2016 Republican National Convention from July 1821. The series of primaries, caucuses, and state conventions culminated in the national convention, where the delegates cast their votes to formally select a candidate. A simple majority of the total delegate votes was required to become the party’s nominee and was achieved by the nominee, businessman Donald Trump of New York.

The process began on March 23, 2015, when Texas SenatorTed Cruz became the first presidential candidate to announce his intentions to seek the office of United StatesPresident. That summer, 17 major candidates were recognized by national and state polls, making it the largest presidential candidate field for any single political party in American history. The large field made possible the fact that the 2016 primaries were the first since 1968 in which more than three candidates won at least one state.

Recommended Reading: Should Republicans Vote In Democratic Primary

May 2016: Trump As Presumptive Nominee

142 delegates were awarded between the Indiana primary and the final primaries in June; however, with Trump the only candidate remaining, Washington, Oregon, West Virginia and Nebraska became essentially uncontested, although Cruz and Kasich remained on the ballot. Trump won handily in West Virginia, Nebraska and Oregon, although Kasich received one delegate from West Virginia and five in Oregon, while Cruz took five in Oregon as well. The next week, Trump won decisively in Washington State, taking 76% of the vote and 41 of 44 delegates, with the other three uncommitted.

May 1024 results 11%

After becoming the presumptive Republican nominee, Trump said regarding the Republican primaries: “You’ve been hearing me say it’s a rigged system, but now I don’t say it anymore because I won. It’s true. Now I don’t care.”

On May 26, 2016, the Associated Press announced that Trump had passed the threshold of 1,237 delegates required to guarantee his nomination, thanks to unbound delegates from North Dakota who declared their support for Trump.

Professional Input Checks The Power Of Billionaires And The Media

The conventional assumption that primaries are less elite than party selection overlooks the way todays primaries actually work. Thanks to court decisions such as SpeechNow.org v. Federal Election Commission, there is today no limit on the size of contributions to independent groups; the groups, in turn, are free to support and oppose candidates provided that they not coordinate their activities with the candidates and parties. In other words, todays campaign-finance rules funnel vast sums of unaccountable money to the political systems least accountable actors.

odays campaign-finance rules funnel vast sums of unaccountable money to the political systems least accountable actors.

That said, even if small donors were a perfectly representative group, they would still provide a pathway around gatekeepers, and that is a mixed blessing. True, candidates who rely on small donors are less beholden to big donors and special interests, which may make them more independent-minded; also true, they are less beholden to their political peers, party leaders, and important constituencies, which may make them more reckless and demagogic.

Then there are the media, whose power in influencing candidate choice has grown enormously since the McGovern-Fraser reforms. Writing as long ago as 1978, Jeanne Kirkpatrick tartly observed:

Things have only gotten worse in the transition from Walter Cronkite to Sean Hannity and todays bevy of extremist internet sites.

Also Check: What Major Cities Are Run By Republicans

Sen Josh Hawley Of Missouri

Though controversial, Hawley, 41, is a fundraising machine and hes quickly made a name for himself. The blowback Hawley faced for objecting to Bidens Electoral College win included a lost book deal and calls for him to resign from students at the law school where he previously taught. His mentor, former Sen. John Danforth of Missouri, said that supporting Hawley was the biggest mistake Ive ever made in my life.

Still, he brought in more than $1.5 million between Jan. 1 and March 5, according to Axios, and fundraising appeals in his name from the National Republican Senatorial Committee brought in more cash than any other Republican except NRSC Chair Sen. Rick Scott of Florida. Just because youre toxic in Washington doesnt mean you cant build a meaningful base of support nationally.

One Republican strategist compared the possibility of Hawley 2024 to Cruz in 2016. Hes not especially well-liked by his colleagues , but hes built a national profile for himself and become a leading Republican voice opposed to big technology companies.

Hawley and his wife, Erin, have three children. He got his start in politics as Missouri attorney general before being elected to the Senate in 2018. Hawley graduated from Stanford and Yale Law.

Statehood And Indian Removal

Defense of Florida’s northern border with the United States was minor during the second Spanish period. The region became a haven for escaped slaves and a base for Indian attacks against U.S. territories, and the U.S. pressed Spain for reform.

Americans of and began moving into northern Florida from the backwoods of and . Though technically not allowed by the Spanish authorities and the Floridan government, they were never able to effectively police the border region and the backwoods settlers from the United States would continue to immigrate into Florida unchecked. These migrants, mixing with the already present British settlers who had remained in Florida since the British period, would be the progenitors of the population known as .

These American settlers established a permanent foothold in the area and ignored Spanish authorities. The British settlers who had remained also resented Spanish rule, leading to a rebellion in 1810 and the establishment for ninety days of the so-called Free and Independent Republic of on September 23. After meetings beginning in June, rebels overcame the garrison at , and unfurled the flag of the new republic: a single white star on a blue field. This flag would later become known as the “”.

Some Seminoles remained, and the U.S. Army arrived in Florida, leading to the . Following the war, approximately 3,000 Seminole and 800 Black Seminole were removed to . A few hundred Seminole remained in Florida in the .

Recommended Reading: How Many Democrats Have Been President Vs Republicans

Anger At Past Outside Interference

The discontent over unaffiliated voter participation in partisan primaries stems from the 2016 approval of two ballot measures allowing unaffiliated voters to select one of the two partys primary elections to cast a ballot in. Before the change, unaffiliated voters had to sit on the sidelines for primaries. 

From 2010 through 2016, Republican primary voter turnout outpaced that of Democrats. But in 2018 and 2020, the first two years unaffiliated voters could participate in primaries without affiliating with one of the two major parties, participation in the Democratic primaries soared.

Meanwhile, more Coloradans are becoming unaffiliated voters, reaching 43% at the end of July, while the Republican Partys share of voters is decreasing at a faster pace than the Democratic Party.

Colorado candidates can get on the primary ballot by one of two paths. They can be nominated and go through the state caucus and assembly process, where they must get 30% of the vote, or they can gather signatures from voters.

Some GOP candidates have had trouble making the ballot in the past. In 2016 and 2018, scandals over petition signatures foiled one U.S. Senate candidate and led a gubernatorial candidate, Walker Stapleton, to go the assembly route at the 11th hour after initially gathering petition signatures.

In 2020, allegations of fraud arose out of caucuses in Weld and El Paso counties. The state GOP, however, ultimately determined nothing illegal took place in either instance. 

Convention And Vp Selection

Midterm elections: Do Republicans have a chance of keeping the House?

The delegates at the Republican National Convention formally nominated Dole on August 15, 1996, as the GOP presidential candidate for the general election. Dole was the oldest first-time presidential nominee at the age of 73 years, 1 month .

Former Congressman and Cabinet secretary Jack Kemp was nominated by acclamation as Dole’s running mate the following day. Republican Party of Texas convention delegates informally nominated Alan Keyes as their preference for Vice President.

Other politicians mentioned as possible GOP V.P. nominees before Kemp was selected included:

Don’t Miss: How Many Seats Do The Republicans Control In The Senate

Just How Bad Was The 2018 Election For House Republicans

On Thursday, Democrat Jared Golden beat Maine Republican Rep. Bruce Poliquin, marking the 33rd seat pickup for Democrats in the 2018 election.

There are seven races in the House left uncalled all are Republican-held seats; Democrats lead in five of the seven. If they win all the races where their candidates are winning at the moment, Democrats will net 38 seats. If they lose them all which is very unlikely they will hold at a 33-seat gain.

In an interview Wednesday with the conservative Daily Caller website,  President Donald Trump insisted that by his aggressive last-minute campaigning across the country he had saved House Republicans from seat losses that could have numbered into the 70s. I think I did very well, he concluded.

So did he? As compared to history?

Not really, is the answer.

Theres no question that Trump did not suffer the massive seat loss that his immediate predecessor Barack Obama did in his first midterm election in 2010. In that election, Republicans netted an astounding 63-seat gain, the largest since Democrats lost 72 House seats in the 1938 midterms.

But more broadly, the 33 seat loss by Republicans in 2018 places this election firmly in the upper echelon of House-seat losses by a presidents party in modern midterms.

Read Thursdays full edition of The Point newsletter, and to get future editions delivered to your inbox.

What Do Party Preferences Mean When Listed With Candidates’ Names On The Ballot What Are The Qualified Political Parties And Abbreviations Of Those Party Names

The term “party preference” is now used in place of the term “party affiliation.” A candidate must indicate his or her preference or lack of preference for a qualified political party. If the candidate has a qualified political party preference that qualified political party will be indicated by the candidate’s name on the ballot. If a candidate does not have a qualified political party preference, “Party Preference: None” will be indicated by the candidate’s name on the ballot.

Similarly, voters who were previously known as “decline-to-state” voters are now known as having “no party preference” or known as “NPP” voters.

Abbreviations for the qualified political parties are:

DEM = Democratic Party

Also Check: How Many Registered Republicans In Illinois

Civil War And Reconstruction

American settlers began to establish cotton in north Florida, which required numerous laborers, which they supplied by buying slaves in the domestic market. By 1860, Florida had only 140,424 people, of whom 44% were enslaved. There were fewer than 1,000 free before the American Civil War.

On January 10, 1861, nearly all delegates in the Florida Legislature approved an ordinance of secession, declaring Florida to be “a sovereign and independent nation”an apparent reassertion to the preamble in Florida’s Constitution of 1838, in which Florida agreed with Congress to be a “Free and Independent State.” The ordinance declared Florida’s secession from the , allowing it to become one of the founding members of the .

The Confederacy received little military help from Florida; the 15,000 troops it offered were generally sent elsewhere. Instead of troops and manufactured goods, Florida did provide salt and, more importantly, beef to feed the Confederate armies. This was particularly important after 1864, when the Confederacy lost control of the Mississippi River, thereby losing access to Texas beef. The largest engagements in the state were the , on February 20, 1864, and the , on March 6, 1865. Both were Confederate victories. The war ended in 1865.

It Was An Election For A Mini

There was some talk that Democrats may have pulled their punches in the 25th district because, after all, the special election was for the remainder of Hills term and the two candidates will meet again in a more consequential rematch where conditions may favor Smith. Over-confidence probably wasnt a problem since signs of a Garcia win were abundant going into the election.

Republicans, of course, busily spun the win into a sign of a Republican resurgence in California and possibly an omen that the GOP will retake the House even as Trump cake-walks to a second term on the strength of a rapidly rebounding economy that he championed even as Democrats pursued perpetual shutdowns. While the results may legitimately indicate that theres no continuing wave from 2018 that will crash with renewed force in favor of Democrats in November, its more likely that we are seeing a reversion to the mean rather than some new pro-Republican wave. There are enough special circumstances surrounding Garcias win to make its recurrence questionable when he appears on the ballot on Election Day with Donald Trump, who remains as unpopular as ever in California.

There is one wrinkle in Garcias special election victory worth a closer look. In 2018 a number of Republican incumbents famously led early on until later-arriving mail ballots swept Democrats into office. There were signs on Election Day that Garcias early lead might be durable, as California political observer Miriam Pawel noted:

Don’t Miss: How Many Registered Republicans In California

What Makes The 2024 Presidential Election Unique

The lead up to the 2024 presidential election is different from past years because of former President Donald Trump. Hes eligible to run for a second term, and has publicly toyed with the idea while also weighing in on other Republicans he thinks could be the future of the party. If Trump does run in 2024, hed start out with unparalleled name ID and massive support, but if he doesnt, the field could be wide open for other Republicans hoping to win over his supporters. President Joe Biden said recently he expects to run for reelection in 2024.

Related

Golden Trump statue at CPAC 2021 was no graven image, according to the artist

This early on, wannabe candidates must raise their profiles, show their commitment to the party, and raise money, one Republican strategist said, to get on peoples radars even when your candidacy is in a holding pattern.

Some of the most visible 2024 presidential candidates will surely flame out long before the Iowa caucus, and theres always the chance that the next Republican nominee isnt yet considered a serious player . Theres a million and one things that will happen between now and then that will shape the race in ways we cant now predict, but the invisible primary that comes before any votes are cast has started.

Heres your very early guide to some of 2024s Republican presidential candidates, based on early polling, interviews with Republican donors and strategists and results from online political betting markets.

The Louisiana Primary System

The Louisiana system, sometimes called the “Cajun Primary,” eliminates the primary election altogether. Instead, all candidates, regardless of party affiliation, run on the same ballot in November. If a candidate receives more than half of the votes, that candidate is elected. If no candidate wins with a majority, the top two vote-getters face off in a December runoff election. Qualified absentee voters receive a ballot for the November election and a ranked ballot for the December runoff, so that they can vote as normal in the general election and then have their ranked ballot count for whichever runoff candidate they ranked highest in the runoff election.

Although Louisiana law refers to the election in November as the “primary” and the December runoff as the “general” election, the November election takes place on the federally mandated Election Day and most candidates win office by receiving a majority vote in that election, so it is best understood as a general election, with the December election as a contingent runoff.

The Louisiana system is sometimes mistakenly equated with the Top Two system, but holding the first election in November and electing any candidate with more than 50% of the vote in that election makes it sufficiently distinct that it should not be understood as a mere variant of Top Two.

Read Also: How Many Republicans Caucused In Iowa

Trump Election Lawsuits Have Mostly Failed Here’s What They Tried

In the Senate, Democrats have so far gained one seat, but they need three with a Biden win to take over the chamber. Democrats still have a chance of doing that with two runoff elections in Georgia. That’s seen as possible, but not likely.

It wasn’t expected to be this way. Democrats had put lots of Senate races in play, ones not expected to go their way at the beginning of the 2020 cycle, places like Kansas and Montana.

To be sure, many of the Senate races were expected to be close, perhaps with razor-thin margins, and a Democrat-controlled Senate was never an assured outcome. But when you look at the average of the polls in the last week of the election versus the ultimate result, it’s clear that Republicans were underrepresented all across the country.

Loading…

All of these races, except Colorado and Alabama, were within single digits in the polls. Colorado, a state Biden won handily, wound up pretty close to the average. Alabama, a state Trump won by a lot, was an even bigger blowout than expected.

Many of the supposedly tightest races didn’t wind up tight at all. Maine is perhaps the most stunning one. Biden won the state by 9 percentage points, but Republican incumbent Susan Collins won reelection by 9 points.

Not only was Collins down by 4 points heading into Election Day in an average of the polls in the week before the election, but she led in just one poll in all of 2020. And that was back in July. That’s one poll out of almost three dozen.

Relationship With The Press

Did The 2014 Primaries Do The GOP Any Good? | Drinking And Talking

Throughout his career, Trump has sought media attention, with a “lovehate” relationship with the press. Trump began promoting himself in the press in the 1970s. Fox News anchor and former House speaker have characterized Trump as a “” who makes controversial statements to see people’s “heads explode.”

In the 2016 campaign, Trump benefited from a record amount of free media coverage, elevating his standing in the Republican primaries.New York Times writer wrote in 2018 that Trump’s media dominance, which enthralls the public and creates “can’t miss” reality television-type coverage, was politically beneficial for him.

As a candidate and as president, Trump frequently accused the press of bias, calling it the “fake news media” and “the .” In 2018, journalist recounted Trump’s saying he intentionally demeaned and discredited the media “so when you write negative stories about me no one will believe you.”

As president, Trump deployed the legal system to intimidate the press. In early 2020, the Trump campaign sued The New York Times, The Washington Post, and CNN for alleged defamation in opinion pieces about Russian election interference. Legal experts said that the lawsuits lacked merit and were not likely to succeed. By March 2021, the lawsuits against The New York Times and CNN had been dismissed.

Don’t Miss: Will Any Republicans Vote To Remove Trump

Garcia Was An Unusually Good Candidate

Republicans lucked into an unusually strong candidate in Garcia, a former Navy pilot running in a district with a significant defense presence, and a Latino in a district whose electorate has become one-third Latino. He managed to beat the previous Republican holder of the seat, Steve Knight, in the February primary in order to win a Top Two position opposite Smith, which was welcomed by Republican strategists. His campaign was well-financed.

Republican Party Primaries 2020

2020 Republican Party primary elections Battleground primaries Primaries by state Submit

Ballotpedia covered every Republican Party state and federal primary in 2020 to highlight the intraparty conflicts that shaped the party and the general election. This page is an overview of those primaries, with links to Ballotpedia’s coverage of all Republican U.S. Senate, U.S. House, and state-level primaries.

to read about Democratic Party primaries in 2020.

You May Like: What Are The Views Of Republicans

Former Us Ambassador To The United Nations Nikki Haley

Haley, 49, stands out in the potential pool of 2024 Republican candidates by her resume. She has experience as an executive as the former governor of South Carolina and foreign policy experience from her time as U.S. ambassador to the United Nations.

Haley was a member of the Republican Partys 2010 tea party class. A former South Carolina state representative, her long shot gubernatorial campaign saw its fortunes improve after she was endorsed by Sarah Palin. Haley rocketed from fourth to first just days after the endorsement, and she went on to clinch the nomination and become her states first female and first Indian-American governor.

As governor, she signed a bill removing the Confederate flag from the state Capitol following the white supremacist attack at the Emanuel African Methodist Church in Charleston. She left office in 2017 to join the Trump administration as U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, and Quinnipiac poll found she was at one point the most popular member of Trumps foreign policy team.

I think that shes done a pretty masterful job in filling out her resume, said Robert Oldendick, a professor and director of graduate studies at the University of South Carolinas department of political science.

Haley criticized Trump following the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol by his supporters, saying she was disgusted by his conduct. Oldendick said he thought her pretty pointed criticism of the president will potentially cause some problems.

‘im Going To Be In Your Backyard’: Trump Sons Threaten Primaries For Gop Lawmakers

Fox News, which had been carrying the remarks live, dropped its feed of the rally after the expletives uttered by the president’s son aired uncensored.

Donald Trump Jr. speaks Wednesday, Jan. 6, 2021, in Washington, at a rally in support of President Donald Trump called the “Save America Rally.” | Jacquelyn Martin/AP Photo

01/06/2021 11:48 AM EST

Link Copied

President Donald Trumps eldest sons threatened Republican lawmakers at a large rally outside the White House on Wednesday, pledging that their family would continue to dispute the results of the 2020 election just hours before Congress was set to certify President-elect Joe Bidens Electoral College victory.

To those Republicans, many of which may be voting on things in the coming hours: You have an opportunity today, Donald Trump Jr. told the crowd gathered for the Save America March on the White House Ellipse. You can be a hero, or you can be a zero. And the choice is yours. But we are all watching. The whole world is watching, folks. Choose wisely.

Several House Republicans and roughly a dozen senators have announced plans to object to individual states electoral vote counts when Congress meets for a joint session this afternoon. And though their effort to reverse the elections outcome has virtually no chance of succeeding, the president had applied increasing public pressure on Vice President Mike Pence who will preside over the proceedings to attempt to thwart Bidens win.

Recommended Reading: Are There Any Republicans For Impeachment

[theliberaltony]

via Politics – FiveThirtyEight

Welcome to FiveThirtyEight’s weekly politics chat. The transcript below has been lightly edited.

micah (Micah Cohen, politics editor): We’re here to talk about superdelegates!!!!!!

Everyone’s favorite subject, right?

clare.malone (Clare Malone, senior political writer): Extremely 2016 up in here.

micah: (This is my least favorite topic.)

clare.malone: I can’t imagine why. It’s so sexy, and the debate is totally based in facts about what happened during 2016.

micah:

OK, so Democrats over the weekend curtailed the power of superdelegates a bit by changing the party’s nominating rules.

Here, from friend-of-the-site Josh Putnam at Frontloading HQ, is a description of the new system:

1. If a candidate wins 50 percent of the pledged delegates plus one during or by the end of primary season, then the superdelegates are barred from the first ballot. 2. If a candidate wins 50 percent of all of the delegates (including superdelegates) plus one, then the superdelegate opt-in is triggered and that faction of delegates can participate in the first (and only) round of voting. 3. If no candidate wins a majority of either pledged or all delegates during or by the end of primary season, then superdelegates are barred from the first round and allowed in to vote in the second round to break the stalemate.

Can someone give us a topline “what this means”?

natesilver (Nate Silver, editor in chief): It means that superdelegates can’t override the voters if someone gets 50 percent + 1 of pledged delegates.

It also means they could be hugely influential in the case of a multiballot convention, which is probably the more important case.

And it probably makes a multiballot convention more likely by not allowing superdelegates to be used as tiebreakers.

clare.malone: I think what they’re trying to do is mitigate the notion during the primary contest that “elites” have outsized weight.

We should note here that Hillary Clinton won more pledged delegates in 2016 than Bernie Sanders.

micah: Yeah, how much of this is PR vs. actually limiting the influence of superdelegates?

natesilver: Like so many other institutions, they’re catering to their critics and fighting the last war.

Like, I’m not even sure how I feel about superdelegates. I just think this is done for maybe the wrong reasons? And that the more interesting lessons were actually in the GOP primary in 2016?

clare.malone: I don’t know — it seems like a fair reaction in many ways.

I don’t think it’s bad to mitigate concerns that people in your base might have about stifling voter representation.

natesilver: Let’s say the pledged delegate allocation after everyone has voted is: Elizabeth Warren 40 percent, Joe Biden 30 percent, Cory Booker 20 percent, and 10 percent scattered among various other candidates who have since dropped out. Under the previous system, superdelegates would weigh in for Warren — who clearly is the most popular choice — and give her a majority on the first ballot.

Under the new system, the superdelegates don’t get to vote on the first ballot. Instead, they wait until the second ballot, when most of the pledged delegates become unpledged.

And there could be a lot more chaos here: Maybe Booker agrees to run as Biden’s VP, for instance.

clare.malone: Devil’s advocate: Why is it chaos? And even if it is chaos, why is it bad?

Are you arguing that it actually leads to back-room deals negating its supposed goal of democratizing the process?

natesilver: I’m saying that requiring an outright majority on the first ballot — no superdelegates to push a candidate who’s close to a majority over the top — coupled with Democrats’ extremely proportional delegate allocations — is a recipe for chaos

The chances of the nomination not being resolved on the first ballot are about 50 percent, maybe a little higher.

perry (Perry Bacon Jr., senior writer): I agree with that. I actually think under the previous system, Warren (or Sanders) was guaranteed to win in a scenario where she (or he) had the most delegates. That is less true now. The previous system gave superdelegates lots of power in theory. But in practice, supers were already bending to the will of the voters. Some superdelegates who originally backed Hillary Clinton flipped to Barack Obama in the latter stages of the 2008 Democratic primary, for example, once it became clear that he would win the most pledged delegates. That ensured that he got the majority of all delegates at the end.

clare.malone: I’ve decided to argue from the angle of the rules-changers. Aren’t you guys infantilizing the voters a bit? Yes, the process might be messier than in previous years, but on a second-round ballot where people are unpledged, you basically get to see a bit of a caucus happen among delegates. Maybe that sort of parliamentary way of doing things is healthy for the party.

Maybe what voters want is to see the process thrashed out, to see a second ballot!

micah: Woo!

natesilver: Maybe! But it goes against the stated aims of the reforms.

perry: And the changes don’t seem like a great advantage for the Sanders people, who pushed for them.

clare.malone: Well, the party is very different than it was in 2016.

So maybe the “center” or the “establishment” candidate will be closer to where Sanders is and it won’t matter … and the voters will be there too.

natesilver: I agree that it’s hard to predict who these changes will benefit. And, of course, there’s a long history of changes that were made with the best of intentions backfiring.

Democrats saw the train wreck that was the Republican nomination process in 2016 and decided to do nothing to prevent something similar happening to them, even though it looks like they could easily also have a 17-candidate field or thereabouts in 2020.

micah: So, using Nate’s hypothetical above — “Warren 40 percent, Biden 30 percent, Booker 20 percent, and 10 percent scattered among various other candidates” — doesn’t this come down to whether you think Warren winning a plurality means she should get the nomination or whether you think Warren not winning a majority means she shouldn’t get the nomination?

natesilver: I think Warren’s probably getting the nomination either way IN THOSE SCENARIOS , but she’s definitely at more risk under the new system.

clare.malone: Maybe it’s a healthier process for a party that has actual divisions.

natesilver: Now, maybe there are some cases where the opposite is true. If you have a case where it’s Kamala Harris 51 percent, Joe Biden 48 percent, Martin O’Malley 1 percent of the pledged delegates — Harris is now guaranteed the nomination, whereas supers could have pushed it to Biden before.

But if it’s Harris 49 percent, Biden 46 percent, O’Malley 5 percent, she’s not.

clare.malone: It’s basically just more of a wild-card system.

(As a side note, as a journalist, I look forward to the potential drama.)

natesilver: What saved the Republicans from a contested convention of their own in 2016 was the fact that a lot of their primaries, especially toward the end stages, were winner-take-all or winner-take-most. That allowed Donald Trump to build up some real momentum in the last one-third or so of the primary calendar.

Without that, the GOP would probably have still gotten Trump anyway — he was clearly the choice of the plurality of voters — but only after an extremely chaotic convention.

perry: I don’t think the big goal (stopping supers from overturning the plurality of the pledged delegates) is necessarily best served by these particular reforms. That said, on the broader question of whether superdelegates SHOULD be able overturn the plurality of pledged delegates, I think there is a case for superdelegates to have that power. I’m not completely sure superdelegates should be disempowered, even though I agree with arguments that the will of the people should be respected and am generally for giving voters more power. The last two years (so Trump) have suggested that maybe party elders should play a bigger role, not necessarily in pushing for a different person ideologically, but maybe a president who abides by general norms. (For example, I think Ted Cruz would be as conservative as Trump, but perhaps less erratic and able to condemn white nationalist rallies.) I’m not sure if, say, Michael Avenatti has a chance of winning the Democratic nomination in 2020, but I bet a lot of Democratic Party elders are not excited at that prospect–and would like to have the power to stop it.

In other words, maybe the elites should have more power?

micah: I’m a secret believer in that.

clare.malone: Why? To prevent chaos?

micah: Because the mob can be dangerous.

clare.malone: Why are you guys harping on that?

I think there’s something to be said about a cathartic political process.

Voters have watched their nominations be manufactured behind the scenes. What’s wrong with radical transparency?

Yes, it might bring a couple of rounds of voting, I concede that. But you haven’t convinced me why that’s bad in the end? As long as there’s civility among the actors, which I think you could engineer, it’s not a terrible scenario.

natesilver: The expectation among voters is that the most popular nominee will get the nomination.

Granted, there are different ways of defining “most popular.”

clare.malone: Which would likely be reflected in the contested convention votes. Right?

Norms have been less broken on the Democratic side of things, so I don’t think that’s an unreasonable expectation.

natesilver: Maybe? But the more ballots you go, the more divorced you become from the delegates’ original preferences.

We knew on the GOP side, for example, that many delegates personally didn’t back Trump and were big risks to turn on him in the event of multiple ballots even though they were bound to him on the first ballot.

A better-organized campaign will exert more control over the delegate selection process and be better at whipping delegates.

perry: I guess I view these rules as being a diss to the superdelegates. The supers themselves read them that way too.

clare.malone: That’s the point, though. They’re meant to diss. It’s the mood of the party’s hoi polloi.

perry: If Sanders or another candidate who is anti-superdelegates does not win a majority of pledged delegates during the primary, he should be worried. I wonder if the supers, on the second ballot, are even more unbound under this new system, compared to the old one. They could say, “You [Sanders’ supporters] said you wanted a system in which a majority of pledged delegates means you win. You didn’t get a majority. We get to intervene now. These are your rules. We are following them and we will now choose who WE want.”

micah: OK, let’s try it this way: Would these rules, had they been in place, have altered any past Democratic nominations?

Would Clinton have had a better chance in 2008?

perry: This is where I would like to do a more careful analysis.

But, yes, my instinct is that Clinton would have had a better chance to win on a second ballot in this new system. The superdelegates would have no role in the first ballot, but I think their role is enhanced in a second one.

natesilver: There are some primaries, such as in 1984 and 2008, where the nomination process would have been messier, although maybe it would have produced the same nominee.

clare.malone: I smell an assignment …

And then some fan fic about the alternate political universes.

natesilver: Yeah. My thing is that you want a system where someone can win on the first ballot with less than a majority, but with a reasonably clear plurality. Because it’s very common for the top candidate to have something like 35 percent to 45 percent of the overall votes in the primary.

There are two ways to achieve that: either through superdelegates or through winner-take-all/winner-take-most rules.

The Democrats have neither one of those now.

clare.malone: Maybe this is finally a concession to the big tent party that they have. And in the ensuing rounds of ballot negotiation, maybe you have compromises on who gets VP — like, a Warren paired with a more centrist person — we’ll see who comes along over the next couple of years.

micah: IDK, maybe I agree with Clare: Democracy is messy, so maybe it should look messy.

perry: I think those changes might be good (the ones Clare laid out). The idea that the convention picks the vp. But they give the elites more power.

Sanders does not want the party to pick his vp.

clare.malone: Well, that’s the concession he has to pay to be more of a player.

People have sold their souls for much less. A compromise VP when you’re the presidential nominee of a party in semi-shock therapy ain’t bad.

natesilver: One simple reform they could have considered is to give the nomination to whomever wins the plurality of delegates. Except in a few weird states, that’s how our electoral system works: Plurality takes all.

micah: Or: National popular vote. Simple. One day of voting. Highest vote-getter takes all.

perry: Can we jump back to the broader context?

The reason I am open to elites having more power is because Trump is different in terms of democratic norms, etc. I think Sanders would be better than Avenatti in terms of following those norms.

And the voters might blow it.

If we have weak parties and strong partisanship, do we want to weaken the parties further?

I’m not usually an elitist, but are we sure the voters are doing a great job?

clare.malone: This feels like the old argument against direct election of U.S. senators.

It basically comes down to the age-old question: Do we trust the vox populi?

micah: No.

clare.malone: Haha, so now you’ve switched teams!

micah: lol

Just kidding.

Do you?

How much “republic” do you want in your democratic republic?

clare.malone: I’m still arguing team small-d democracy.

natesilver: There’s also the question of whether ranked-choice voting would produce a different result. Like, suppose that Avenatti was the plurality front-runner with 20 percent of the vote. But most of the other 80 percent who didn’t vote for him didn’t like him.

clare.malone: I think you’ve got to have some faith in the voters.

perry: I want to.

natesilver: Although the GOP doesn’t have superdelegates per se, the fact that the party made relatively feeble efforts to stop Trump is also relevant here. It suggests the norm toward letting voters decide is quite strong.

And the stronger that norm is, the less dangerous that superdelegates are.

micah: I think Perry said this earlier, but I do think there’s a chance this empowers supers because it will erode that norm on the second ballot.

perry: Yeah, that is what I was hinting at — particularly if it’s something like Sanders 44 percent and Harris or Booker or Julian Castro (a non-white candidate) at 41.

natesilver: THEY’RE GOING TO STEAL THE NOMINATION FROM AVENATTI

clare.malone: I mean, he’s got his Vogue story in place.

Next comes the chummy Ellen interview.

perry: FiveThirtyEight contributor Seth Masket wrote that there was a big racial divide at the DNC meeting where this change was adopted, namely that some prominent black officials are opposed to the changes.

The Congressional Black Caucus, for example, likes the power of superdelegates in the current system. (Members of Congress are superdelegates, of course.)

clare.malone: Donna Brazile was making the argument that the DNC was trying to disenfranchise them.

micah: Why do you think there’s a racial divide?

perry: Because there is a big racial divide among party elites about Sanders.

Sanders did well among young black voters. But I suspect that he has very little support among black superdelegates.

natesilver: And there’s also the question of: What if in a close race, you had one Democrat with a plurality of votes/delegates but very little support among black or Hispanic Democrats.

You could argue that’s a case where supers should intervene. I’m not sure I like that argument, but you could make it.

Although, again, in any type of plurality scenario, the supers get to intervene anyway.

micah: How about this for a compromise: Have superdelegates but only let elected officials be them.

natesilver: Many/most of them are elected officials anyway?

clare.malone: Yeah.

micah: Not all, though.

perry: Most superdelegates are DNC members, according to the Pew Research Center, not members of Congress. But some of those DNC members might be elected officials at the local level.

micah: BAM!

clare.malone: I love that one of the subcategories of superdelegates is “distinguished party leaders.” Lol.

natesilver: How about: Let the nowcast decide in the event that no one gets the plurality?

perry: Nate Silver picks which candidate is most electable.

natesilver: Hahaha

hahahahaha

perry: If we pitched this idea to Democratic voters, that Nate picks the candidate or the DNC picks, they would probably go with Nate. I’m serious. I don’t think most Democrats trust the party that much.

natesilver: But see the most electable candidate would be the one with the most popular support.

clare.malone: O’Malley’s gonna make a comeback in that case.

micah: If all the supers were elected officials, it would still have a tinge of small-d democracy. It’s a good middle ground!

perry: That seems right to me. They would be accountable.

That’s the problem with the DNC — people don’t necessarily know who those people are.

natesilver: How about if there’s no majority through the delegate system, there’s a national 50-state referendum where everyone votes again?

That would obviously be cost/logistically prohibitive.

In some very real ways, though, polls could become very important under that scenario. For example, it was probably important in 2008 that Obama never fell behind Clinton in national polls, or at least not for sustained periods, when going through all the Jeremiah Wright stuff, etc.

perry: I’m going to play the Micah role here, because I was curious what Nate’s and Clare’s thoughts were about the caucus changes.

micah: Yeah, let’s close on that. Can someone give me a summary of the caucus changes please?

natesilver: My understanding is that caucuses now need to include a means for people to participate off-site — e.g., through absentee ballots.

perry: Right.

clare.malone: I think it’s probably a shift toward the right kind of “small d democracy” change I’ve been talking about. There are lots of good arguments that say caucuses mean that a lot of people who do shift work can’t vote.

natesilver: Caucuses tend to favor candidates whose supporters are (1) more enthusiastic and (2) better organized. I’m not sure that necessarily maps cleanly onto a left-right scale, and it can be fairly idiosyncratic from election to election who does better in caucuses.

clare.malone: Caucuses tend to favor insurgents, it’s fair to say.

natesilver: They didn’t in the GOP, though.

clare.malone: On the Democratic side they have, right?

natesilver: Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz (OK, Cruz is sort of an insurgent) did better in caucuses, and Trump struggled in them.

I think that’s mostly true.

In 1988, Jesse Jackson struggled in caucuses early on but then started to do quite well in them. It can be quirky.

Also, a lot of states have abandoned caucuses of their own volition and switched to primaries.

perry: So is this a big change?

natesilver: It’s not big in the sense that the Democrats didn’t have that many caucuses anyway, and they were mostly in small-population states.

However, there are often big differences between who does well in caucuses and who does well in primaries.

Without caucuses, Clinton might have won in 2008.

Without caucuses, Sanders wouldn’t have lasted nearly as long.

If the GOP had more caucuses, they might not have chosen Trump.

micah: To wrap, does anyone want to say whether all these changes help or hurt any specific potential 2020 candidates?

Or do we really just have no clue?

clare.malone: I think you have to wait and see what their support/activist system is like.

natesilver: Yeah, we’re at the stage where there are 15 billiard balls on the table and it’s hard to know what everything will look like after the break.

Again, my

take is just that it’s a bad idea to have neither superdelegates nor winner-take-all/most rules. Especially in a year without a clear front-runner.

micah: OK, to sum up, it seems like the best take is: These changes could have big unforeseen and unintended consequences — or maybe not. And to cap us off, I asked Julia (who has studied this a lot) to give us her take …

julia_azari (Julia Azari, political science professor at Marquette University and FiveThirtyEight contributor): I’m more ambivalent about the superdelegate change than a lot of political scientists, many of whom are generally opposed to them. This is mainly because I think parties need to think about how they can regain legitimacy, and if supers are left out of the first ballot but can legitimately come in in the case of a deadlocked convention, that’s a good thing.

Acknowledging the possibility that the nomination might not be wrapped up by the convention and that that could be something other than a total crisis is in my view a good thing. The emphasis on party elites unifying around a single candidate early in the nomination — in either party — hampers competition within the party and potentially prevents voters from having real power in the nomination process.. At the same time, my understanding is that none of the rules change anything about how elected officials can make their preferences known during and before the primary season (so people who are superdelegates can still endorse someone ,even if that endorsement is not effectively a delegate vote in this new process), and that will rightly be seen by some in (for lack of a better term) the Bernie camp as attempting to tip the scales in favor of more establishment candidates. If you could actually have a competitive convention without it being seen as a giant disaster, then elites wouldn’t need to head that off by endorsing early.

[statetalks]

How Did Republicans Do In The Primaries

Allegations Of Inciting Violence

Inside Texas Politics: What did Texas Republicans, Democrats do right this election cycle?

Research suggests Trump’s rhetoric caused an increased incidence of hate crimes. During his 2016 campaign, he urged or praised physical attacks against protesters or reporters. Since then, some defendants prosecuted for hate crimes or violent acts cited Trump’s rhetoric in arguing that they were not culpable or should receive a lighter sentence. In May 2020, a nationwide review by ABC News identified at least 54 criminal cases from August 2015 to April 2020 in which Trump was invoked in direct connection with violence or threats of violence by mostly white men against mostly members of minority groups. On January 13, 2021, the House of Representatives impeached Trump for incitement of insurrection for his actions prior to the storming of the U.S. Capitol by a violent mob of his supporters who acted in his name.

Who Can Vote In A Primary

Only Democrats can vote in the Democratic Primary.

Only Republicans can vote in the Republican Primary.

The last day to register to vote before the Primary is the 4th Saturday before the Primary.

The deadline to change party affiliation before the Primary is the last Friday in May.

You can register to vote and change your party affiliation after the Primary.

Results Of The 2016 Republican Party Presidential Primaries

    Donald Trump

e

This article contains the results of the 2016 Republican presidential primaries and caucuses, the processes by which the Republican Party selected delegates to attend the 2016 Republican National Convention from July 1821. The series of primaries, caucuses, and state conventions culminated in the national convention, where the delegates cast their votes to formally select a candidate. A simple majority of the total delegate votes was required to become the party’s nominee and was achieved by the nominee, businessman Donald Trump of New York.

The process began on March 23, 2015, when Texas SenatorTed Cruz became the first presidential candidate to announce his intentions to seek the office of United StatesPresident. That summer, 17 major candidates were recognized by national and state polls, making it the largest presidential candidate field for any single political party in American history. The large field made possible the fact that the 2016 primaries were the first since 1968 in which more than three candidates won at least one state.

Recommended Reading: Should Republicans Vote In Democratic Primary

May 2016: Trump As Presumptive Nominee

142 delegates were awarded between the Indiana primary and the final primaries in June; however, with Trump the only candidate remaining, Washington, Oregon, West Virginia and Nebraska became essentially uncontested, although Cruz and Kasich remained on the ballot. Trump won handily in West Virginia, Nebraska and Oregon, although Kasich received one delegate from West Virginia and five in Oregon, while Cruz took five in Oregon as well. The next week, Trump won decisively in Washington State, taking 76% of the vote and 41 of 44 delegates, with the other three uncommitted.

11%

After becoming the presumptive Republican nominee, Trump said regarding the Republican primaries: “You’ve been hearing me say it’s a rigged system, but now I don’t say it anymore because I won. It’s true. Now I don’t care.”

On May 26, 2016, the Associated Press announced that Trump had passed the threshold of 1,237 delegates required to guarantee his nomination, thanks to unbound delegates from North Dakota who declared their support for Trump.

Professional Input Checks The Power Of Billionaires And The Media

The conventional assumption that primaries are less elite than party selection overlooks the way todays primaries actually work. Thanks to court decisions such as SpeechNow.org v. Federal Election Commission, there is today no limit on the size of contributions to independent groups; the groups, in turn, are free to support and oppose candidates provided that they not coordinate their activities with the candidates and parties. In other words, todays campaign-finance rules funnel vast sums of unaccountable money to the political systems least accountable actors.

odays campaign-finance rules funnel vast sums of unaccountable money to the political systems least accountable actors.

That said, even if small donors were a perfectly representative group, they would still provide a pathway around gatekeepers, and that is a mixed blessing. True, candidates who rely on small donors are less beholden to big donors and special interests, which may make them more independent-minded; also true, they are less beholden to their political peers, party leaders, and important constituencies, which may make them more reckless and demagogic.

Then there are the media, whose power in influencing candidate choice has grown enormously since the McGovern-Fraser reforms. Writing as long ago as 1978, Jeanne Kirkpatrick tartly observed:

Things have only gotten worse in the transition from Walter Cronkite to Sean Hannity and todays bevy of extremist internet sites.

Also Check: What Major Cities Are Run By Republicans

Sen Josh Hawley Of Missouri

Though controversial, Hawley, 41, is a fundraising machine and hes quickly made a name for himself. The blowback Hawley faced for objecting to Bidens Electoral College win included a lost book deal and calls for him to resign from students at the law school where he previously taught. His mentor, former Sen. John Danforth of Missouri, said that supporting Hawley was the biggest mistake Ive ever made in my life.

Still, he brought in more than $1.5 million between Jan. 1 and March 5, according to Axios, and fundraising appeals in his name from the National Republican Senatorial Committee brought in more cash than any other Republican except NRSC Chair Sen. Rick Scott of Florida. Just because youre toxic in Washington doesnt mean you cant build a meaningful base of support nationally.

One Republican strategist compared the possibility of Hawley 2024 to Cruz in 2016. Hes not especially well-liked by his colleagues , but hes built a national profile for himself and become a leading Republican voice opposed to big technology companies.

Hawley and his wife, Erin, have three children. He got his start in politics as Missouri attorney general before being elected to the Senate in 2018. Hawley graduated from Stanford and Yale Law.

Statehood And Indian Removal

Defense of Florida’s northern border with the United States was minor during the second Spanish period. The region became a haven for escaped slaves and a base for Indian attacks against U.S. territories, and the U.S. pressed Spain for reform.

Americans of and began moving into northern Florida from the backwoods of and . Though technically not allowed by the Spanish authorities and the Floridan government, they were never able to effectively police the border region and the backwoods settlers from the United States would continue to immigrate into Florida unchecked. These migrants, mixing with the already present British settlers who had remained in Florida since the British period, would be the progenitors of the population known as .

These American settlers established a permanent foothold in the area and ignored Spanish authorities. The British settlers who had remained also resented Spanish rule, leading to a rebellion in 1810 and the establishment for ninety days of the so-called Free and Independent Republic of on September 23. After meetings beginning in June, rebels overcame the garrison at , and unfurled the flag of the new republic: a single white star on a blue field. This flag would later become known as the “”.

Some Seminoles remained, and the U.S. Army arrived in Florida, leading to the . Following the war, approximately 3,000 Seminole and 800 Black Seminole were removed to . A few hundred Seminole remained in Florida in the .

Recommended Reading: How Many Democrats Have Been President Vs Republicans

Anger At Past Outside Interference

The discontent over unaffiliated voter participation in partisan primaries stems from the 2016 approval of two ballot measures allowing unaffiliated voters to select one of the two partys primary elections to cast a ballot in. Before the change, unaffiliated voters had to sit on the sidelines for primaries. 

From 2010 through 2016, Republican primary voter turnout outpaced that of Democrats. But in 2018 and 2020, the first two years unaffiliated voters could participate in primaries without affiliating with one of the two major parties, participation in the Democratic primaries soared.

Meanwhile, more Coloradans are becoming unaffiliated voters, reaching 43% at the end of July, while the Republican Partys share of voters is decreasing at a faster pace than the Democratic Party.

Colorado candidates can get on the primary ballot by one of two paths. They can be nominated and go through the state caucus and assembly process, where they must get 30% of the vote, or they can gather signatures from voters.

Some GOP candidates have had trouble making the ballot in the past. In 2016 and 2018, scandals over petition signatures foiled one U.S. Senate candidate and led a gubernatorial candidate, Walker Stapleton, to go the assembly route at the 11th hour after initially gathering petition signatures.

In 2020, allegations of fraud arose out of caucuses in Weld and El Paso counties. The state GOP, however, ultimately determined nothing illegal took place in either instance. 

Convention And Vp Selection

Midterm elections: Do Republicans have a chance of keeping the House?

The delegates at the Republican National Convention formally nominated Dole on August 15, 1996, as the GOP presidential candidate for the general election. Dole was the oldest first-time presidential nominee at the age of 73 years, 1 month .

Former Congressman and Cabinet secretary Jack Kemp was nominated by acclamation as Dole’s running mate the following day. Republican Party of Texas convention delegates informally nominated Alan Keyes as their preference for Vice President.

Other politicians mentioned as possible GOP V.P. nominees before Kemp was selected included:

Don’t Miss: How Many Seats Do The Republicans Control In The Senate

Just How Bad Was The 2018 Election For House Republicans

On Thursday, Democrat Jared Golden beat Maine Republican Rep. Bruce Poliquin, marking the 33rd seat pickup for Democrats in the 2018 election.

There are seven races in the House left uncalled all are Republican-held seats; Democrats lead in five of the seven. If they win all the races where their candidates are winning at the moment, Democrats will net 38 seats. If they lose them all which is very unlikely they will hold at a 33-seat gain.

In an interview Wednesday with the conservative Daily Caller website,  President Donald Trump insisted that by his aggressive last-minute campaigning across the country he had saved House Republicans from seat losses that could have numbered into the 70s. I think I did very well, he concluded.

So did he? As compared to history?

Not really, is the answer.

Theres no question that Trump did not suffer the massive seat loss that his immediate predecessor Barack Obama did in his first midterm election in 2010. In that election, Republicans netted an astounding 63-seat gain, the largest since Democrats lost 72 House seats in the 1938 midterms.

But more broadly, the 33 seat loss by Republicans in 2018 places this election firmly in the upper echelon of House-seat losses by a presidents party in modern midterms.

Read Thursdays full edition of The Point newsletter, and to get future editions delivered to your inbox.

What Do Party Preferences Mean When Listed With Candidates’ Names On The Ballot What Are The Qualified Political Parties And Abbreviations Of Those Party Names

The term “party preference” is now used in place of the term “party affiliation.” A candidate must indicate his or her preference or lack of preference for a qualified political party. If the candidate has a qualified political party preference that qualified political party will be indicated by the candidate’s name on the ballot. If a candidate does not have a qualified political party preference, “Party Preference: None” will be indicated by the candidate’s name on the ballot.

Similarly, voters who were previously known as “decline-to-state” voters are now known as having “no party preference” or known as “NPP” voters.

Abbreviations for the qualified political parties are:

DEM = Democratic Party

Also Check: How Many Registered Republicans In Illinois

Civil War And Reconstruction

American settlers began to establish cotton in north Florida, which required numerous laborers, which they supplied by buying slaves in the domestic market. By 1860, Florida had only 140,424 people, of whom 44% were enslaved. There were fewer than 1,000 free before the American Civil War.

On January 10, 1861, nearly all delegates in the Florida Legislature approved an ordinance of secession, declaring Florida to be “a sovereign and independent nation”an apparent reassertion to the preamble in Florida’s Constitution of 1838, in which Florida agreed with Congress to be a “Free and Independent State.” The ordinance declared Florida’s secession from the , allowing it to become one of the founding members of the .

The Confederacy received little military help from Florida; the 15,000 troops it offered were generally sent elsewhere. Instead of troops and manufactured goods, Florida did provide salt and, more importantly, beef to feed the Confederate armies. This was particularly important after 1864, when the Confederacy lost control of the Mississippi River, thereby losing access to Texas beef. The largest engagements in the state were the , on February 20, 1864, and the , on March 6, 1865. Both were Confederate victories. The war ended in 1865.

It Was An Election For A Mini

There was some talk that Democrats may have pulled their punches in the 25th district because, after all, the special election was for the remainder of Hills term and the two candidates will meet again in a more consequential rematch where conditions may favor Smith. Over-confidence probably wasnt a problem since signs of a Garcia win were abundant going into the election.

Republicans, of course, busily spun the win into a sign of a Republican resurgence in California and possibly an omen that the GOP will retake the House even as Trump cake-walks to a second term on the strength of a rapidly rebounding economy that he championed even as Democrats pursued perpetual shutdowns. While the results may legitimately indicate that theres no continuing wave from 2018 that will crash with renewed force in favor of Democrats in November, its more likely that we are seeing a reversion to the mean rather than some new pro-Republican wave. There are enough special circumstances surrounding Garcias win to make its recurrence questionable when he appears on the ballot on Election Day with Donald Trump, who remains as unpopular as ever in California.

There is one wrinkle in Garcias special election victory worth a closer look. In 2018 a number of Republican incumbents famously led early on until later-arriving mail ballots swept Democrats into office. There were signs on Election Day that Garcias early lead might be durable, as California political observer Miriam Pawel noted:

Don’t Miss: How Many Registered Republicans In California

What Makes The 2024 Presidential Election Unique

The lead up to the 2024 presidential election is different from past years because of former President Donald Trump. Hes eligible to run for a second term, and has publicly toyed with the idea while also weighing in on other Republicans he thinks could be the future of the party. If Trump does run in 2024, hed start out with unparalleled name ID and massive support, but if he doesnt, the field could be wide open for other Republicans hoping to win over his supporters. President Joe Biden said recently he expects to run for reelection in 2024.

Related

Golden Trump statue at CPAC 2021 was no graven image, according to the artist

This early on, wannabe candidates must raise their profiles, show their commitment to the party, and raise money, one Republican strategist said, to get on peoples radars even when your candidacy is in a holding pattern.

Some of the most visible 2024 presidential candidates will surely flame out long before the Iowa caucus, and theres always the chance that the next Republican nominee isnt yet considered a serious player . Theres a million and one things that will happen between now and then that will shape the race in ways we cant now predict, but the invisible primary that comes before any votes are cast has started.

Heres your very early guide to some of 2024s Republican presidential candidates, based on early polling, interviews with Republican donors and strategists and results from online political betting markets.

The Louisiana Primary System

The Louisiana system, sometimes called the “Cajun Primary,” eliminates the primary election altogether. Instead, all candidates, regardless of party affiliation, run on the same ballot in November. If a candidate receives more than half of the votes, that candidate is elected. If no candidate wins with a majority, the top two vote-getters face off in a December runoff election. Qualified absentee voters receive a ballot for the November election and a ranked ballot for the December runoff, so that they can vote as normal in the general election and then have their ranked ballot count for whichever runoff candidate they ranked highest in the runoff election.

Although Louisiana law refers to the election in November as the “primary” and the December runoff as the “general” election, the November election takes place on the federally mandated Election Day and most candidates win office by receiving a majority vote in that election, so it is best understood as a general election, with the December election as a contingent runoff.

The Louisiana system is sometimes mistakenly equated with the Top Two system, but holding the first election in November and electing any candidate with more than 50% of the vote in that election makes it sufficiently distinct that it should not be understood as a mere variant of Top Two.

Read Also: How Many Republicans Caucused In Iowa

Trump Election Lawsuits Have Mostly Failed Here’s What They Tried

In the Senate, Democrats have so far gained one seat, but they need three with a Biden win to take over the chamber. Democrats still have a chance of doing that with two runoff elections in Georgia. That’s seen as possible, but not likely.

It wasn’t expected to be this way. Democrats had put lots of Senate races in play, ones not expected to go their way at the beginning of the 2020 cycle, places like Kansas and Montana.

To be sure, many of the Senate races were expected to be close, perhaps with razor-thin margins, and a Democrat-controlled Senate was never an assured outcome. But when you look at the average of the polls in the last week of the election versus the ultimate result, it’s clear that Republicans were underrepresented all across the country.

Loading…

All of these races, except Colorado and Alabama, were within single digits in the polls. Colorado, a state Biden won handily, wound up pretty close to the average. Alabama, a state Trump won by a lot, was an even bigger blowout than expected.

Many of the supposedly tightest races didn’t wind up tight at all. Maine is perhaps the most stunning one. Biden won the state by 9 percentage points, but Republican incumbent Susan Collins won reelection by 9 points.

Not only was Collins down by 4 points heading into Election Day in an average of the polls in the week before the election, but she led in just one poll in all of 2020. And that was back in July. That’s one poll out of almost three dozen.

Relationship With The Press

Did The 2014 Primaries Do The GOP Any Good? | Drinking And Talking

Throughout his career, Trump has sought media attention, with a “lovehate” relationship with the press. Trump began promoting himself in the press in the 1970s. Fox News anchor and former House speaker have characterized Trump as a “” who makes controversial statements to see people’s “heads explode.”

In the 2016 campaign, Trump benefited from a record amount of free media coverage, elevating his standing in the Republican primaries.New York Times writer wrote in 2018 that Trump’s media dominance, which enthralls the public and creates “can’t miss” reality television-type coverage, was politically beneficial for him.

As a candidate and as president, Trump frequently accused the press of bias, calling it the “fake news media” and “the .” In 2018, journalist recounted Trump’s saying he intentionally demeaned and discredited the media “so when you write negative stories about me no one will believe you.”

As president, Trump deployed the legal system to intimidate the press. In early 2020, the Trump campaign sued The New York Times, The Washington Post, and CNN for alleged defamation in opinion pieces about Russian election interference. Legal experts said that the lawsuits lacked merit and were not likely to succeed. By March 2021, the lawsuits against The New York Times and CNN had been dismissed.

Don’t Miss: Will Any Republicans Vote To Remove Trump

Garcia Was An Unusually Good Candidate

Republicans lucked into an unusually strong candidate in Garcia, a former Navy pilot running in a district with a significant defense presence, and a Latino in a district whose electorate has become one-third Latino. He managed to beat the previous Republican holder of the seat, Steve Knight, in the February primary in order to win a Top Two position opposite Smith, which was welcomed by Republican strategists. His campaign was well-financed.

Republican Party Primaries 2020

2020 Republican Party primary elections Battleground primaries Primaries by state Submit

Ballotpedia covered every Republican Party state and federal primary in 2020 to highlight the intraparty conflicts that shaped the party and the general election. This page is an overview of those primaries, with links to Ballotpedia’s coverage of all Republican U.S. Senate, U.S. House, and state-level primaries.

to read about Democratic Party primaries in 2020.

You May Like: What Are The Views Of Republicans

Former Us Ambassador To The United Nations Nikki Haley

Haley, 49, stands out in the potential pool of 2024 Republican candidates by her resume. She has experience as an executive as the former governor of South Carolina and foreign policy experience from her time as U.S. ambassador to the United Nations.

Haley was a member of the Republican Partys 2010 tea party class. A former South Carolina state representative, her long shot gubernatorial campaign saw its fortunes improve after she was endorsed by Sarah Palin. Haley rocketed from fourth to first just days after the endorsement, and she went on to clinch the nomination and become her states first female and first Indian-American governor.

As governor, she signed a bill removing the Confederate flag from the state Capitol following the white supremacist attack at the Emanuel African Methodist Church in Charleston. She left office in 2017 to join the Trump administration as U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, and Quinnipiac poll found she was at one point the most popular member of Trumps foreign policy team.

I think that shes done a pretty masterful job in filling out her resume, said Robert Oldendick, a professor and director of graduate studies at the University of South Carolinas department of political science.

Haley criticized Trump following the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol by his supporters, saying she was disgusted by his conduct. Oldendick said he thought her pretty pointed criticism of the president will potentially cause some problems.

‘im Going To Be In Your Backyard’: Trump Sons Threaten Primaries For Gop Lawmakers

Fox News, which had been carrying the remarks live, dropped its feed of the rally after the expletives uttered by the president’s son aired uncensored.

Donald Trump Jr. speaks Wednesday, Jan. 6, 2021, in Washington, at a rally in support of President Donald Trump called the “Save America Rally.” | Jacquelyn Martin/AP Photo

01/06/2021 11:48 AM EST

Link Copied

President Donald Trumps eldest sons threatened Republican lawmakers at a large rally outside the White House on Wednesday, pledging that their family would continue to dispute the results of the 2020 election just hours before Congress was set to certify President-elect Joe Bidens Electoral College victory.

To those Republicans, many of which may be voting on things in the coming hours: You have an opportunity today, Donald Trump Jr. told the crowd gathered for the Save America March on the White House Ellipse. You can be a hero, or you can be a zero. And the choice is yours. But we are all watching. The whole world is watching, folks. Choose wisely.

Several House Republicans and roughly a dozen senators have announced plans to object to individual states electoral vote counts when Congress meets for a joint session this afternoon. And though their effort to reverse the elections outcome has virtually no chance of succeeding, the president had applied increasing public pressure on Vice President Mike Pence who will preside over the proceedings to attempt to thwart Bidens win.

Recommended Reading: Are There Any Republicans For Impeachment

source https://www.patriotsnet.com/how-did-republicans-do-in-the-primaries/

[somethingusefulfromflorida]

Term Lengths

George Washington: 2865 days

John Adams: 1460 days [average: 2162.5 days]

Thomas Jefferson: 2922 days [avg: 2415.66667]

James Madison: 2922 [2542.25]

James Monroe: 2922 [2618.2]

John Quincy Adams: 1461 [2425.33333]

Andrew Jackson: 2922 [2496.28571]

Martin Van Buren: 1461 [2366.875]

William Henry Harrison: 31 [2107.33333]

John Tyler: 1430 [2039.6]

James K. Polk: 1461 [1987]

Zachary Taylor: 492 [1862.41667]

Millard Fillmore: 969 [1793.69231]

Franklin Pierce: 1461 [1769.92857]

James Buchanan: 1461 [1749.33333]

Abraham Lincoln: 1503 [1733.9375]

Andrew Johnson: 1419 [1715.41177]

Ulysses S. Grant: 2922 [1782.44444]

Rutherford B. Hayes: 1461 [1765.52632]

James A. Garfield: 199 [1737.2]

Chester Alan Arthur: 1262 [1714.57143]

Grover Cleveland: 1461 [1703.04546]

Benjamin Harrison: 1461 [1692.52174]

Grover Cleveland: 1461 [1682.875]

William McKinley: 1654 [1681.72]

Theodore Roosevelt: 2728 [1721.96154]

William Howard Taft: 1461 [1712.29630]

Woodrow Wilson: 2922 [1755.5]

Warren G. Harding: 881 [1725.34483]

Calvin Coolidge: 2041 [1735.86667]

Herbert Hoover: 1461 [1727]

Franklin D. Roosevelt: 4422 [1811.21875]

Harry S. Truman: 2840 [1842.39394]

Dwight D. Eisenhower: 2922 [1874.14706]

John F. Kennedy: 1036 [1850.2]

Lyndon B. Johnson: 1886 [1851.19444]

Richard Nixon: 2027 [1855.94595]

Gerald Ford: 895 [1830.65790]

Jimmy Carter: 1461 [1821.17949]

Ronald Reagan: 2922 [1848.7]

George H.W. Bush: 1461 [1839.24390]

Bill Clinton: 2922 [1865.02381]

George W. Bush: 2922 [1889.60465]

Barack Obama: 2922 [1913.06818]

Donald Trump: 1461 [1903.02222]

Joe Biden: pending

More than 2 terms: 1/46

2 full terms: 12/46

Between 1 and 2 terms: 7/46

1 full term: 15/46

less than 1 term: 10/46

TBD: 1/46

Washington served 2 full terms, but he was sworn in as president two months after he was supposed to start, so his 2865 is less than the full 2922. His immediate successor John Adams served one full term, but because the year 1800 was not a leap year, his 1460 is one short of the regular 1461. William McKinley would have served 2921 days for the same reason had he not been assassinated. 1800 and 1900 were not leap years, but 2000 was, so George W. Bush served a full 2922. Grover Cleveland served two terms, but they are counted separately as single terms here because they were non-consecutive; he served once as the 22nd president and once as the 24th.

As of 2021, the average length of term for the president of the United States is 1903.022 days, or 5.21019 years (5 years, 77 days).

If we graph out term lengths for the first 45 presidents, we can see that, on average, they're lasting longer than before:

Line of best fit: 10.047036x + 1649.718182 (x = president number)

If we instead look at average term length over time, we'll see that while term length has trended down overall since Washington (the blue line), it has actually been trending up since reaching a local minimum at McKinley:

Line of best fit: -13.131288x + 2230.558258

If we look only at the presidents since Teddy Roosevelt, we get this:

Line of best fit: 9.677111x + 1475.141058

We can use this to try and extrapolate for Joe Biden's presidency: if we looked only at the term lengths of his predecessors, we could predict he would serve for 10.047036x46 + 1649.718182 = 2111.88184 days, or 5.78202 years (5 years, 286 days), which is considerably higher than the average of 5.21019.

Looking at how it has changed over time, we would expect the average term length after 46 presidents to be -13.131288x46 + 2230.558258 = 1626.51901 days, which is too far below the actual value to be useful. The actual average was 1903.022222 after 45 presidents, so the only way it could drop to 1626.51901 after 46 would be for Biden to serve for -10816.12554 days. Negative 11 thousand days! Negative 30 years! We'll assume that's highly unlikely, so let's instead look at the figures since Roosevelt. 9.677111x46 + 1475.141058 = 1920.288164 days. For the average to come up from 1903.022222 to 1920.288164 means Biden would be expected to serve 2697.255544 days, a much more reasonable 7.38468 years (7 years, 141 days).

In the first half the presidency, presidents died in office like clockwork. It was so common that people started believing the office was cursed; William Henry Harrison was a general known for slaughtering natives, especially at the Battle of Tippecanoe in 1811, and he became the first president to die in office in 1841. From then on, every single president elected in a year divisible by 20 also died in office; 1840 Harrison, 1860 Lincoln, 1880 Garfield, 1900 McKinley, 1920 Harding, 1940 Roosevelt, 1960 Kennedy. It was known as the Curse of Tippecanoe, or Tecumseh's revenge, and when Ronald Reagan survived his assassination attempt in 1981 people believed he had "broken" the curse. For the record, I don't believe there ever was a real curse, it was just a coincidence that failed to account for Zachary Taylor who was elected in 1848. The only significance the "curse" had was that it meant few presidents survived their full terms, meaning the vice president would assume office and serve out the remainder.

In 1974, Richard Nixon became the first president to leave office early through resignation rather than death, cutting his second term short, leaving Gerald Ford to fill out the last 2 years and some change. Since then, every single president has survived their full terms, and most of them have successfully been re-elected (save for Carter, Bush Sr. and Trump). A president is more likely to be re-elected now than at any other point in American history; the first half saw tons of single-term and partial-term presidents, bringing the average way down before FDR made it spike with 4 terms (of which he served 3 and a month before dying), followed by relatively stable lifespans ever since.

With the introduction of the 22nd Amendment during Truman's presidency, it will be near impossible for any future presidents to serve more than 2 full terms, 8 years, 2922 days. It's still theoretically possible, just extremely unlikely; the amendment says you cannot be elected president more than twice, and if you serve more than two years of a term to which someone else was elected, then you can't be elected more than once. This means that if the president died or resigned 2 years and a day into their term, their VP could serve out the remainder and still be illegible to run for two full terms of their own, for a total of 3652 days (almost 10 years exactly), so the graph will likely asymptote somewhere between 4 and 8 years (closer to 8, as re-election is much more common).

That said, who knows? Maybe we're overdue for an irregular transition and five of the next ten presidents might not make it through their full terms. That would actually be normal for America; the last 50 years of stability have been the outlier. Regularity is irregular here.

[womenofcolor15]

Was The Failed Capitol Coup An Inside Job? Here’s Why The FBI (And Everyone Else) Believes It Was

As more details and videos from the day Trump supporters’ attempted insurrection come trickling in, there’s speculation that the event was an “inside job.” Police were seen letting people past barricades and people are questioning how the rioters found the offices of certain Congressman and women. More inside…

On hell literally broke loose when Trump supporters descended on the U.S. Capitol for a coup attempt as Congress was counting up the electoral votes to officially confirm the election results that President-elect Joe Biden and Vice President-elect Kamala Harris won. The attack was incited by Trump moments before the attack was carried out.

Now, the FBI – and at least half of America – feel as if the Capitol insurrection was an “inside job” that was orchestrated with some Capitol police and staffers from inside the building. More videos are coming out from the attack that helps make this theory believable.

In several instances, police were caught on video pulling back the barricades to allow the domestic terrorists inside the federal building. Peep one clip below:

THEY LITERALLY JUST LET THEM THROUGH pic.twitter.com/tWMuchly8w

— hermione lovers ONLY (@jihanbit) January 6, 2021

Cops were also seen snapping selfies with the rioters.

Check it

Cops are taking selfies with the terrorists. pic.twitter.com/EjkQ83h1p2

— Timothy Burke (@bubbaprog) January 6, 2021

Once inside, cops were seen standing to the side and basically ushering in the rioters.

Sources told TMZ the FBI is currently reviewing and examining all of the videos that are being posted online to help prove some Capitol police and staffers were in on the violent attack

Another reason the FBI thinks the attack was an inside job is how easy it was for the #MAGA mob to find their way to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s office. Now, they're investigating everyone.

The site reports:

It's not off any main hallway or next to other Congressional offices ... in fact, the path to get to the entrance is maze-like and not open to the public like other parts of the Capitol. The rioters who took it over -- vandalizing it and stealing a laptop -- got there within 10 minutes of entering the Capitol.

We're told the FBI feels someone must have provided a roadmap for them to find it that quickly. Remember, the Capitol has been closed to the public since March due to the pandemic so it's not like these guys could have been casing it to plot their path.

As for suspects -- we're told the FBI is looking at Capitol Police officers and many other Capitol staffers, such as engineers, plumbers and janitors.

Pelosi’s laptop, some mail and her lectern were stolen. The Capitol mob member who lounged atH House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s desk and stole mail out of her office - Richard Barnett of Arkansas - was also arrested. He was charged for “knowingly entering or remaining in any restricted building or grounds without lawful entry; violent entry and disorderly conduct on Capitol grounds; and theft of public money, property, or records.”

        View this post on Instagram

                      A post shared by CBS This Morning (@cbsthismorning)

  After his photo-op in Pelosi’s office, he spoke with the media outside of the Capitol and said he didn’t break in, he was “pushed in” the federal building and into her office. He also said he didn’t “steal” Pelosi’s mail because he left a quarter. And he also said he left Pelosi a note on her desk that reads, “Nancy, Big O was here, you biotch!”

Sir....

Adam Christian Johnson – the man who stole Pelosi’s lectern – was also arrested and he’s being held on a federal warrant. 

House Democrats also believe the attack was an inside job. During a 3.5-hour caucus call by House Democrats on Friday, Rep. Steven Horsford (D-Nev.) told his colleagues he thought the riots were “an inside job,” according to two lawmakers on the call.

House Majority Whip Jim Clyburn (D-S.C.) noted how rioters made their way to his UNAMRKED, third floor office and stole his iPad. He questioned how the rioters were able to locate that office being that it wasn’t clearly marked as his.

Rep. Linda Sanchez (D-Calif.) specifically raised the question of possible collusion among some Capitol Police officers, according to several people listening.

“I am very sad to say that I believe that there were people within the Capitol police and within the Capitol building that were part of helping these insurrectionists to really have a very well-coordinated plan for when they were going to come, how they were going to come,” Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) said on Gray TV’s “Full Court Press with Greta Van Susteren.”

Pressed further on whether some Capitol Police officers were not just looking the other way but actually involved, Jayapal said, “It appears that way, both from what happened, how coordinated it was, how easy it was.” Rep. Steven Horsford (D-Nev.) told his colleagues he thought the riots were “an inside job,” according to two lawmakers on the call.

Five people died as a result of the mob attack, including one Capitol police officer.

U.S. Capitol Police Chief Steven Sund has resigned amid criticism of not being fully prepared to deal with the violent mob on Capitol Hill. His resignation is effective January 16th, according to a Capitol Police official.

Majority Leader Mitch McConnell announced Michael Stenger, the Senate Sergeant at Arms and Doorkeeper, has resigned as well.

It's being reported by several media outlets that a second Capitol police officer, who some reports say was off duty, has died from an apparent suicide.

A Capitol Police officer who responded to the deadly riots in Washington last week died by an apparent suicide on Saturday, according to multiple news reports, as the department struggles to fully recover from the devastating and destructive siege carried out by pro-Trump extremists.

Howard B. Liebengood, 51, worked in the Senate Division and had been assigned with the force since April 2005. He is the son of the late Sergeant of Arms Howard S. Liebengood, who died in 2005.

Liebengood’s father, also Howard Liebengood, died in 2005.

He was the Senate Sargeant at Arms in the early 1980s and then became a powerful lobbyist and an associate of Paul Manafort’s. https://t.co/jdubq9eL0B

— Yashar Ali (@yashar) January 10, 2021

WHOA Howard Liebengood, (the Capitol police officer that just died from suicide) father was associated with Paul Manafort. Manafort’s company, Event Strategies, was involved with the planning of the Trump Rally at the Capitol... stay w me... https://t.co/VQZY7KnMEC

— Venture Capital (@kelly2277) January 10, 2021

Event Strategies was the vendor of choice for Trump events like the Inauguration AND was used in Ukraine for pro Russian Yanukovych ... #CapitolCoup https://t.co/fyt4ShqkcS

— Venture Capital (@kelly2277) January 10, 2021

Why were Roger Stone and deceased Capitol Police Officer Howard Liebengood’s father discussing assassinations of Presidents Given the #CapitolCoup situation w @VP - this is super suspicious. @selectedwisdom pic.twitter.com/XTbciIzLr4

— Venture Capital (@kelly2277) January 11, 2021

“Our thoughts and prayers go out to his family, friends and colleagues,” the U.S. Capitol Police wrote in a statement issued on Sunday. “We ask that his family, and other USCP officers’ and their families’ privacy be respected during this profoundly difficult time.”

The backstory about Liebengood, though, is interesting.  His father became close friends with Trump cronie Paul Manafort in 2005.  Why would an off duty officer be at the Capitol on this day, if those reports are true?

   Also…

Trump lies in his new Twitter video. He did not "immediately" deploy the National Guard.

— Kyle Griffin (@kylegriffin1) January 8, 2021

In the Twitter video Trump posted during the riot, he said he ordered the National Guard and federal law enforcement to secure the building and expel the intruders immediately, but that was a LIE.

Newsweek reports:

In a statement Wednesday, Acting Secretary of Defense Christopher Miller did not mention working with Trump. He said he "spoke separately with the Vice President [Mike Pence] and with Speaker Pelosi, Leader McConnell, Senator Schumer and Representative Hoyer about the situation at the U.S. Capitol."

Reports show that Trump was initially hesitant to involve the National Guard. NBC said Trump "had to be convinced" and that Pence was in contact with the Pentagon and "encouraged a much more rapid deployment."

According to CNN, Trump was less eager to deploy federal forces on Capitol Hill on Wednesday than he had been for other protests, but "Pence played a key role in coordinating with the Pentagon about deploying them, and urged them to move faster than they were." 

So you see, it was Pence who got the National Guard to the Capitol and not Trump. DC Mayor Bowser also said she requested the National Guard several hours prior to no avail.

Now, Pelosi is doing whatever she can to get Trump out of office. In a press release, she wrote: 

In protecting our Constitution and our Democracy, we will act with urgency, because this President represents an imminent threat to both. As the days go by, the horror of the ongoing assault on our democracy perpetrated by this President is intensified and so is the immediate need for action.

Let's get him out of the White House...STAT!

Is a huge cover up going on?

Photo: Alex Gakos/Shutterstock.com

Inside The U.S. Capitol Riot - The Saddest Day For Modern Democracy

[Read More ...] source http://theybf.com/2021/01/11/was-the-failed-capitol-coup-an-inside-job-here%E2%80%99s-why-the-fbi-believes-it-was

[patriotsnet]

What Republicans Are Running For President This Year

New Post has been published on https://www.patriotsnet.com/what-republicans-are-running-for-president-this-year/

What Republicans Are Running For President This Year

The This Sounds Crazy But Hear Me Out Wild Card

GOP Senator Roy Blunt Says 2022 Will Be a Great Election Year for Republicans

Mike Lindell

Donald Trump wasnt the first celebrity businessman without any experience in elective office who got traction in a Republican presidential primary. In 2012, it was former Godfathers Pizza CEO Herman Cain. In 1996 and 2000, it was magazine publisher Steve Forbes. Back in 1940, utility executive Wendell Willkie snagged the GOP nomination.

Today, who is the most famous, politically active Republican businessman? MyPillow CEO Mike Lindell. That may sound crazy, but no crazier than what we experienced in 2016.

Lindell is a leader of the bitter-enders trying to overturn the democratic results of the presidential election. He claims to have spent $1 million on legal work and Stop the Steal rallies to support Trumps delusional cause. On December 19, he tweeted out a call for Trump to impose martial law in these 7 states and get the machines/ballots! though he soon deleted the post.

He became a conservative darling in part because he heavily marketed his pillows on Fox News; in the second quarter of 2020, MyPillow was Fox Newss top advertiser, spending more than double the amount of the second-place company. But now he accuses Fox News, and its early call that Biden won Arizona, of conspiring to defeat Trump

What to watch for in 2021:While Lindell has been thinking about a Minnesota gubernatorial bid, he has managed to visit neighboring Iowa several times in 2020. Lets see which state he campaigns in more in 2021.

Filed Under:

Former Un Ambassador Nikki Haley

Haley gets a lot of buzz, and she has been actively courting attention since leaving the Trump administration almost two years ago. Jared Kushner and Ivanka Trump even considered pulling her in last summer to replace Vice President Mike Pence on the 2020 ticket to help with Trumps ailing numbers among women a move the husband-wife White House duo fervently denied.);

Haley moves up a notch based on consistent exposure since June, a prime speaking slot at the Republican National Convention on Monday night, and a strong showing of 11 percent support in the most-recent 2024 poll.;

The former South Carolina governor can stake claim to being popular among the world of Washington pundits and professional political types, many of whom were interviewed for this story and spoke very highly of her. But she has also been dinged by some operatives as more of a media creation than a serious contender for 2024.

Leaving the job was hard, but putting family first was more important. And I think now its about taking it a year at a time, she said earlier this year during a meeting of the Federalist Society.

William Henry Harrison Vs Martin Van Buren

Aware that Van Burens problems gave them a good chance for victory, the Whigs rejected the candidacy of Henry Clay, their most prominent leader, because of his support for the unpopular Second Bank of the United States. Instead, stealing a page from the Democratic emphasis on Andrew Jacksons military exploits, they chose William Henry Harrison, a hero of early Indian wars and the War of 1812. The Whig vice-presidential nominee was John Tyler, a onetime Democrat who had broken with Jackson over his veto of the bill rechartering the Second Bank.

Studiously avoiding divisive issues like the Bank and internal improvements, the Whigs depicted Harrison as living in a log cabin and drinking hard cider. They used slogans like Tippecanoe and Tyler too, and Van, Van, Van/Van is a used-up man, to stir voters. Harrison won by a popular vote of 1,275,612 to 1,130,033, and an electoral margin of 234 to 60. But the victory proved to be a hollow one because Harrison died one month after his inauguration. Tyler, his successor, would not accept Whig economic doctrine, and the change in presidential politics had little effect on presidential policy.

Recommended Reading: Percentage Of Americans That Are Republican

Im Running For President Because Its Time For New Leadership Because Its Time For New Energy And Its Time For A New Commitment To Make Sure That The Opportunities Getting Out There Being Able To Hear Peoples Concerns Address Them With New Ideas Has Been An Extraordinary Experience He Said

Biden thought hard about running in 2016, but he decided against it, being so soon after his son beaus death and. Running for president of the united states is an. But there is so much more to it. Joe biden opposed president reagans peace through strength that led to the fall of the berlin wall. And speaking of brand image i read the program of warren recently, and was tempted to give her a french honorary citizenship as she is trying to import.

Eight Republican 2024 Candidates Speak In Texas Next Week But Not Trump

WASHINGTON, April 30 A Republican Party event in Texas next week will hear from eight potential candidates for the partys presidential nomination in 2024, without former President Donald Trump, a source involved in the planning said on Friday.

The May 7 event at a hotel in Austin is being co-hosted by U.S. Senator John Cornyn and Texas Governor Greg Abbott, to thank donors who helped fund a voter registration drive and get-out-the-vote efforts in the state.

High-profile Republican politicians who are considering whether to seek the partys nomination in 2024 are expected to speak to the crowd of about 200 donors.

They include former New Jersey Governor Chris Christie, Arkansas Senator Tom Cotton, Florida Governor Ron DeSantis, former Vice President Mike Pence, former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, and U.S. senators Marco Rubio, Tim Scott and Rick Scott, the source said.

The event comes as Republicans wrestle with whether to try to move past Trump in the next election cycle or fall in line behind him. Trump told Fox Business Networks Maria Bartiromo on Thursday that he was 100% considering another run after losing in 2020 to Democrat Joe Biden.

Trump was not invited to Texas, the source said. Former South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley was invited but was unable to attend, the source said.

Many Republican insiders doubt Trump will follow through on his musings about running for president in 2024, leaving a void that other party leaders will seek to fill.

Also Check: Kaine’s Lapel Pin

Notable Candidates Include Individuals Who Have Qualified To Appear On Enough State There Were 21 Candidates On The Ballot Each In Vermont And Colorado

Bush said in retrospect that the divisiveness of the primary challenge might have cost bush reelection. There are several people running for the republican nomination, but given the current president is a republican, he is the only one that matters. Notable candidates include individuals who have qualified to appear on enough state there were 21 candidates on the ballot each in vermont and colorado. While the republican and democratic nominees will be on the ballot in all states, independents must meet an array why is he running for president? Former congressmen joe walsh announces republican presidential primary challenge.

But it can be repaired by someone who can lead, and i ran for president to win and make a difference in our great country, swalwell photo: Since the current president is democrat, we already know who the democrat running for president will be . The only other person running worth mentioning is bill weld, former governor of massachusetts, who was the libertarian nominee for vp back in 2016. Other republicans have made it quite clear they dont see a path to the nomination for anyone but trump in 2020. I think that as a republican party, we have lost our way. mark sanford.

Lincoln Chafeewho Is He

The failson scion of a Rhode Island Republican family, Chafee served in the Senate as a Republican ; as governor, as an independent and then a Democrat ; and then ran for president as a Democrat in 2016.

Is he running? No. He filed papers to run for the Libertarian Party nomination on January 5, but dropped out on April 7.

Why did he want to run?

Who wanted him to run?

Could he have won the nomination? Given that he dropped his bid even without any serious rivals in the race, apparently not.

You May Like: What Republicans Voted For Impeachment In The House

Abortion Rights Drinking Age Drugs And More

At present, Weld is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations. Self-described as strongly pro-choice when it comes to abortion rights, he is also said to believe that drug use should not be considered a criminal offense. He feels the drinking age should be lowered but has not stated at what age it should be set.;

When it comes to matters of the military, Weld also draws a conservative line. He feels that America should withdraw its troops from foreign engagements and that the countrys efforts and resources should be refocused on domestic issues, in order to prosper.;According to Aljhazeera.com, Weld previously supported bans on assault weapons in the US.

Sen Elizabeth Warren D

Colorado’s only Republican governor elected within last 50 years says presidential race is over

After establishing a presidential exploratory committee just before New Year’s Day 2019, Warren officially joined the race in February with an event in Massachusetts.

“This is the fight of our lives,” the senator said. “The fight to build an America where dreams are possible, an America that works for everyone. I am in that fight all the way.”

The progressive candidate who ran against corruption and pumped out more than 50 policy proposals during her campaign, suspended her run after a lackluster finish in all four early voting states and on Super Tuesday — where she even came up short in her home state. Her best finish was in Iowa, where she came in third.

“I will not be running for president in 2020. But I guarantee I will stay in the fight for the hard-working folks across the country who’ve got the short end of the stick, over and over,” she told reporters at a media availability in Cambridge, Massachusetts, on March 5.

Don’t Miss: Which 10 Republicans Voted To Impeach

Cancellation Of State Caucuses Or Primaries

The Washington Examiner reported on December 19, 2018, that the South Carolina Republican Party had not ruled out forgoing a primary contest to protect Trump from any primary challengers. Party chairman Drew McKissick stated, “Considering the fact that the entire party supports the president, we’ll end up doing what’s in the president’s best interest.” On January 24, another Washington Examiner report indicated that the Kansas Republican Party was “likely” to scrap its presidential caucus to “save resources”.

In August 2019, the Associated Press reported that the Nevada Republican Party was also contemplating canceling their caucuses, with the state party spokesman, Keith Schipper, saying it “isn’t about any kind of conspiracy theory about protecting the president;… He’s going to be the nominee;… This is about protecting resources to make sure that the president wins in Nevada and that Republicans up and down the ballot win in 2020.”

Kansas, Nevada and South Carolina’s state committees officially voted on September 7, 2019, to cancel their caucus and primary. The Arizona state Republican Party indicated two days later that it will not hold a primary. These four were joined by the Alaska state Republican party on September 21, when its central committee announced they would not hold a presidential primary.

Virginia Republicans decided to allocate delegates at the state convention.

Dwight D Eisenhower: Campaigns And Elections

The Campaign and Election of 1952:

During an extraordinary military career, Dwight D. Eisenhower had done some things that few, if any, Americans had ever experienced. But he had not done something that was extremely commonhe had never voted. Yet in 1948, many Americans hoped that the general would cast his first ballotfor himself as President. Even Harry S. Truman tried to interest Eisenhower in a run for the presidency. As the election year of 1948 approached, Truman, who became President when Franklin D. Roosevelt died in 1945, seemed to have little chance of winning a full term of his own. In a private meeting, Truman proposed that he and Eisenhower run together on the Democratic ticket, with Eisenhower as the presidential candidate and Truman in second position. Eisenhower rejected this astonishing offer and probably thought that he would never again have to consider the possibility of a run for the White House. He also spurned requests from prominent Republicans that he seek the GOP nomination for President.

Campaign Difficulties

“There was a time when I thought he would make a good President… That was my mistake.”

President Harry Truman, 1952

The Campaign and Election of 1956

The President Prevails

Read Also: What Republicans Voted To Impeach The President

Presidential Campaign And 2011 Hints At Presidential Run

In 2000, Trump for nomination as the Reform Party candidate for the but withdrew from the race in February 2000. A July 1999 poll matching him against likely Republican nominee and likely Democratic nominee showed Trump with seven percent support.

In 2011, Trump against President Barack Obama in , making his first speaking appearance at the in February 2011 and giving speeches in early primary states. In May 2011, he announced he would not run, and he endorsed in February 2012. Trump’s presidential ambitions were generally not taken seriously at the time.

Trump As A Stalking Horse

Of course, there was plenty of speculation during the race for the 2016 Republican presidential nomination that Trump was trying to sabotage the GOP candidates by saying outrageous things and making a mockery of the process in a bid to help Hillary Clinton win the election.

“Donald Trump is trolling the GOP,” political reporter Jonathan Allen wrote. Trump also threatened to run for president as an independent, a move many believed would siphon votes from the Republican nominee as other, similar candidates have done in the past.

Recommended Reading: How Many Americans Are Registered Republicans

Former Secretary Of State Mike Pompeo

If the 2024 election turns into a foreign policy debate, the 57-year-old Pompeo is in a strong position with his background as former secretary of state and CIA director.

During Pompeos recent speech at the Westside Conservative Club in Urbandale, Iowa, he gave a preview of some of the lines that might end up in his presidential stump speech. He said hes spent more time with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un than any other American, including basketball star Dennis Rodman, and talked about the threat he sees from China. His mention of the U.S. moving its embassy in Israel to Jerusalem during his tenure was met with applause.

Before serving in Trumps Cabinet, Pompeo blasted then-candidate Trump as an authoritarian. Pompeo made the remarks the day of the Kansas caucus in 2016, quoting Trump saying that if he told a soldier to commit a war crime, they would go and do it. Pompeo said the U.S. had spent 7½ years with an authoritarian president who ignored the Constitution, referencing former President Barack Obama, and we dont need four more years of that.

Pompeo served three full terms representing Kansas in the U.S. House before joining the Trump administration. He and his wife, Susan, have one child. He graduated from the U.S. Military Academy and Harvard Law and served in the U.S. Army.

Donald J Trump Vs Hillary R Clinton

The 2016 election was unconventional in its level of divisiveness. Former first lady, New York Senator and Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton became the first woman to be nominated by a major party in a U.S. presidential election. Donald Trump, a New York real estate baron and reality TV star, was quick to mock fellow Republicans running for the nomination as well as his democratic opponent.

In what many political analysts considered a stunning upset, Trump, with his populist, nationalist campaign, lost the popular vote, but won the Electoral College, becoming the nations 45th president.

Popular Vote: 65,853,516 to 62,984,825 . Electoral College: 306 to 232 .

You May Like: How Many Registered Republicans In Oklahoma

Former South Bend Indiana Mayor Pete Buttigieg

Buttigieg first made a national name for himself with a bid for Democratic National Committee chair in 2017. He was the youngest candidate in the 2020 race, and could have become the first gay man to be elected president.

While he trailed many of his opponents in name recognition early on, Buttigieg argued that he could represent a generational shift in government, and speaks frequently of issues that will affect younger Americans, such as tax reform, gun control and climate change.

“I get the audacity of somebody like me talking about running for this office, but frankly it’s a leap for anybody,” Buttigieg said on ABC’s “This Week” in February. “And yet all of the people who had that job have been mortals who just bring their experience to the table. My experience is that of guiding a city through transformation, and I think a mayor at any level has the kind of executive frontline government experience and, by the way, problem-solving experience that we need more in Washington right now.”

Late on March 1, following the South Carolina primary and ahead of Super Tuesday, he said “the path has narrowed to a close” and announced that he was suspending his 2020 presidential campaign.

Trump Remains 2024 Candidate Of Choice For Most Republicans Poll Shows

How GOP retirements are making the 2022 midterm elections a Trump referendum

59% of Republican voters said they wanted Trump to play prominent role in party, but tens of thousands left after Capitol riot

If the 2024 Republican presidential primary were held today, Donald Trump would be the clear favorite to win big. That was the message from a Politico-Morning Consult poll released on Tuesday, three days after Trumps acquittal in his second impeachment trial, on a charge of inciting the insurrection at the US Capitol on 6 January.

Among Republican voters, 59% said they wanted Trump to play a prominent role in their party, up a whopping 18 points from the last such poll, taken in the aftermath of the Capitol riot. A slightly lower number, 54%, said they would back Trump in the primary.

Tens of thousands of Republicans left the party after the Capitol insurrection, and a majority of Americans have told other pollsters they would like to see Trump banished from politics.

Though the 45th president will be 78 by election day 2024, he will be able to run again if he chooses, having escaped being barred from office after a 57-43 Senate vote to convict with seven Republican defections but 10 votes short of the majority needed.

Mike Pences life was threatened by Trump supporters at the Capitol, as the vice-president presided over the ratification of electoral college results confirming Trumps defeat by Joe Biden. He placed second in the Politico-Morning Consult poll, with 12%.

Don’t Miss: What Republicans Voted Against Repeal Of Obamacare

[theliberaltony]

via Politics – FiveThirtyEight

Television shows are writing the 25th Amendment into their ripped-from-the-headlines storylines. Pundits debate the possibilities of the removal and succession of the president if he is incapacitated. Even former FBI Director James Comey has weighed in on whether Donald Trump is “medically unfit to be president.” (He doesn’t think so.) In the unlikely — but politically fascinating — event that a Cabinet were to use the power to oust a sitting president, what would come next?

Let’s take a deeper look at the 25th Amendment and think about what each section of it has meant in the past — and what it might mean for Trump-era politics.

Section 1. In case of the removal of the President from office or of his death or resignation, the Vice President shall become President.

The amendment’s initial section revisits what Article II of the Constitution set up from the beginning — the vice president takes over if the president dies or is unable to serve — but with clearer language to clean up previous constitutional confusion. When William Henry Harrison died shortly after his inauguration in 1841, there were questions about whether John Tyler, nicknamed “His Accidency,” was truly the president or just an “acting” president of some kind. Tyler made clear his intent to fully occupy the office and do everything an elected president would have done — and he forged his own path separate from Harrison. Since then, seven presidents have taken office after a presidential death (all before the 25th Amendment was ratified) and one after a resignation. In this way, the amendment codified the status quo.1

What this means now: Many have already discussed the possibility of a President Pence. But it’s worth underscoring how much he represents a different, more establishment brand of Republicanism than Trump. If Trump were to be removed for incapacity, it would be an interesting test of whether Trumpism could survive if carried out by a leader with a very different temperament and political profile — or if that leader would abandon Trumpism altogether.

Section 2. Whenever there is a vacancy in the office of the Vice President, the President shall nominate a Vice President who shall take office upon confirmation by a majority vote of both Houses of Congress.

Before this, if the vice president became president, there was … no vice president. That exact situation accounted for 24 years of U.S. history, including a period just before Congress took up the 25th Amendment in 1965. From taking the oath of office in November 1963 until he and Hubert Humphrey were sworn in after winning election in 1964, Lyndon Johnson had no vice president. Instead, the next two people in line (per the 1947 Presidential Succession Act) were both in poor health and, in the words of Roll Call’s David Hawkings, “a combined 157 years old.” This section of the 25th Amendment has since been invoked twice, when Spiro Agnew resigned in 1973 and Richard Nixon chose Gerald Ford to replace him, and when Ford succeeded Nixon as president in 1974 and chose Nelson Rockefeller as his VP.

What this means now: If Pence became president, he could choose his own veep, subject to congressional approval. Depending on party control of Congress, that could get interesting. It would offer a chance for Pence to either choose a Trump ally or move the party in a different direction. Pence’s choice could say a lot about whether invoking the amendment was a reaction to Trump personally or a repudiation of his overall approach to politics.

Section 3. Whenever the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that he is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, and until he transmits to them a written declaration to the contrary, such powers and duties shall be discharged by the Vice President as Acting President.

This section seems like it should be pretty straightforward. It was invoked without controversy twice in the early 2000s when President George W. Bush signed over power to Vice President Dick Cheney for a few hours during sedation for routine medical procedures. But it can get fuzzy.

The 25th Amendment wasn’t invoked when Ronald Reagan was shot in 1981, despite the fact that the White House physician kept a copy of the amendment in his bag. Bill Clinton didn’t formally put Section 3 provisions in place when he had knee surgery in 1997, saying that he was never under general anesthesia. However, Clinton’s press secretary indicated that the chief of staff had been in close contact with Vice President Al Gore’s staff in case “anything about the 25th Amendment is indicated.”

And there is disagreement on whether Reagan properly invoked the 25th Amendment in 1985 when he underwent surgery to remove a polyp from his colon. Reagan submitted letters to the House speaker and Senate president pro tempore designating Vice President George H.W. Bush as acting president, citing an “existing agreement” between the two. The letters also stated that Reagan was not specifically activating the process laid out in the 25th Amendment and that he did not believe that “the drafters of this Amendment intended its application to situations such as the instant one.”

Some argue that this message reflected the basic spirit of the 25th Amendment, while others suggest that because it wasn’t a formal invocation, it’s not really an instance of a president using the 25th Amendment.

What this means now: When people talk today about invoking the 25th Amendment, they aren’t talking about Trump having minor surgery and temporarily handing the reins to Pence. But the resistance of earlier presidents to using the 25th Amendment in such cases, even though the amendment seems directly designed for those instances, illustrates the depth of the struggle and complications over control of presidential power.

Section 4 (first paragraph). Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President.

Here’s where we transition from historical explanation to future speculation. This section has never been invoked, and it has a number of ambiguous phrases that leave it open to a range of possibilities. For starters, who exactly gets to decide that the president isn’t able to serve? The conventional interpretation of the amendment is that it needs the vice president plus a majority of the Cabinet.2

But with the deciders well agreed upon, if not explicitly spelled out, what does “unable to discharge powers and duties of the office” mean, and who gets to provide the definition? The context for the 25th Amendment was pretty clearly aimed at the kind of physical and mental incapacities that come after strokes, heart attacks and bullets. Woodrow Wilson’s stroke, Dwight Eisenhower’s heart attack and John F. Kennedy’s assassination (and the related worry about what would have happened if he had survived but been incapacitated) all informed the debate about the amendment. But there’s nothing in the text that actually requires a diagnosis.

What this means now: This could end up being a test of the authority of the Cabinet as much as anything else. The amendment empowers the Cabinet to take this action. But what we see with Section 3 is that a lot of anxiety about giving up power still looms over the process. Even if the Cabinet followed the letter of the law, it might still look like a palace coup. In order to get around this, the Cabinet has to have a certain amount of stature — an issue that would be put to the test if it sought to remove the commander in chief.

Section 4 (second paragraph). Thereafter, when the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that no inability exists, he shall resume the powers and duties of his office unless the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive department or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit within four days to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office. Thereupon Congress shall decide the issue, assembling within forty-eight hours for that purpose if not in session.

In other words, the 25th Amendment provides a way for the president to respond to accusations of a lack of fitness. And that’s where things get interesting. After the president offers a declaration that he or she is able to serve, the Cabinet has four days to object and respond. But who gets to be president during that time? The text isn’t clear. It goes on to say:

If the Congress, within twenty-one days after receipt of the latter written declaration, or, if Congress is not in session, within twenty-one days after Congress is required to assemble, determines by two-thirds vote of both Houses that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall continue to discharge the same as Acting President; otherwise, the President shall resume the powers and duties of his office.

Many parts of the Constitution are vague, but this one sets the country up for a pretty wild ride. Constitutional scholar Brian Kalt points out: “Section 4 is drafted less than perfectly. The best reading of Section 4’s text — and the clear message from its drafting history — is that when the president declares he is able, he does not retake power until either (1) four days pass without the vice-president and Cabinet disagreeing; or (2) he, the president, wins the vote in Congress. But the text is ambiguous on this point and commentators have frequently misread it as allowing the president to retake power immediately upon his declaration of ability.”

This opens up a possibility that Kalt describes in detail in his book “Constitutional Cliffhangers,” in which the country ends up with two presidents and two Cabinets. In the fictional scenario, the vice president and 11 Cabinet members agree to remove a president whose behavior has been erratic. But she conspires with her chief of staff to “declare that no inability exists,” reclaims power, and fires and replaces the Cabinet that removed her. In this setup, an amendment aimed at preventing a constitutional crises has now created one.

Kalt and others have pointed out that, in addition to the ambiguity of the text, it is difficult to remove a president through the 25th Amendment. In the event that the president disagrees about the incapacity issue, the amendment requires two-thirds of the House and Senate to remove him or her (as opposed to the impeachment process, which requires a simple majority of the House to impeach and two-thirds of the Senate to convict).

What this means now: The provision of the amendment that everyone’s been talking about is the one we know the least about. Since the 25th Amendment was ratified, presidents, vice presidents and White House officials have tread very cautiously around the provisions of Section 4. It seems fairly safe to say that there are lingering legitimacy issues when it comes to members of the executive branch actually talking about removing the president and replacing him or her with the vice president. And even under perfectly innocuous circumstances, presidents seem very reluctant to entertain the idea of being temporarily replaced under the amendment’s provisions.

All of this points to a conclusion we probably already knew: The Cabinet, especially as it’s currently constituted, is pretty unlikely to take action against Trump. But Congress has its own set of political pressures, and if the Democratic “wave” happens, we may see a serious attempt to go after the president. If impeachment proceedings don’t get off the ground, Congress could turn to the 25th Amendment: While Congress can’t initiate removal of the president under the amendment, it can convene a body to investigate the president’s fitness to serve — and such legislation has already been proposed.

Convening an investigative commission might seem like a bureaucratic and indirect step compared with the drama of impeachment. But such a commission might be easier to sell to members of Congress who are wary of impeachment. It might also be a way to address the legitimacy issues that otherwise seem to plague the 25th Amendment — a president’s removal from office may be less likely to be seen as a coup if it comes from the people’s elected representatives. And voting to create a commission might be more palatable for congressional Republicans.

One of the arguments against invoking the 25th Amendment to remove Trump is that it wasn’t really intended for this purpose. But looking at how the amendment has been used in practice reveals that political context matters, and so does legitimacy. Presidents have avoided activating Section 3 of the article, appearing reluctant to concede even temporary power to their own vice presidents. And Section 4 spells out a process that is legally unclear. It’s likely that any discussion of the 25th Amendment will be about the politics of the moment rather than the precise text of its provisions. Whether we see it put into practice will depend on whether Congress or members of the Cabinet see political benefit in doing so. A critical part of that process would be to overcome the legitimacy challenges and political disruption that using the 25th Amendment would create.

[somethingusefulfromflorida]

TLDR: the future of the country lies with the For The People Act, and Joe Manchin holds all the cards.

Whether or not Donald Trump runs for re-election in 2024 largely depends on whether the For The People Act passes in the Senate.

If it does, and elections are reformed with federal guidelines, AND if it survives the inevitable Supreme Court challenges (which is dubious given the 6-3 conservative majority), then no, Trump won't run again because he wouldn't want to risk losing a second time. He's humiliated, he has to pretend it was stolen from him so he doesn't have to acknowledge the fact that he lost like a little bitch. If the election reforms level the playing field, he wouldn't stand a chance of winning in 2024; he only won in 2016 because of voter apathy and suppression in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania. Turnout was WAY higher in 2020, and he got blown out of the water.

If the act fails in the Senate or is struck down by SCOTUS, then Trump will absolutely run again because Republican lawmakers will rig the elections in his favor in all the swing states he lost. If the reforms don't pass, all the states Biden flipped will flip right back because of even worse suppression and partisan interference. Republicans tried to overturn the results after he lost in 2020, but the courts prevented them from doing so; now they've had a taste for things, they know what they can and can't do, so they'll spend the next four years rewriting the rules in their favor so the courts will side with them in 2024. 2020 wasn't rigged, it was arguably the most transparent election in American history, and that has Republicans scared shitless; they know they can't win on policy, they're trying to win by technicality. They haven't legitimately won since Bush Sr in 1988; Democrats have won 7 of the last 8 elections, the only exception being 2004 at which point we were still reeling from 9/11 and were caught up in two new wars in the Middle East. Bush Jr had the incumbency advantage, and the wars made him more popular than he turned out to actually be (he left office with record low approval ratings in the 20s; in 2008 both parties ran candidates on the platform of "I am not George W. Bush"). Republicans know they can win without a majority, so that's what they plan on doing from now on. They don't need to care about popular opinion.

For The People is extremely popular, with majority support from Democratic, independent, and yes, even Republican voters, but their lawmakers are fighting tooth and nail to stop it. Not a single Republican will vote for it in the Senate, and Manchin and Sinema refuse to get rid of the filibuster, so it's as good as dead unless they change their minds or reform the legislative process. Back in the day, a filibuster was active, it required a senator to hold the floor and refuse to yield for as long as possible (the record is over 24 hours). Any member could filibuster a bill by taking the floor and delaying until they were exhausted, or until 60 senators voted to stop them. Starting in the 1970s, the filibuster became passive because the Senate decided that actually holding the floor was irrelevant so long as the other side couldn't get the 60 votes needed to stop it. Legislation has ground to a halt ever since, exacerbated by the election of Mitch McConnell as majority leader in 2015. He proudly became known as the Bill Killer, effectively vetoing every single one by simply refusing to let any of them go the floor at all; instead of opening up the chamber and letting members filibuster, he would simply let the bills die on his desk, even if they had enough support to pass. If he didn't personally want it to pass, then it didn't pass. End of story. There's a joke that if Congress were on fire, it couldn't even pass the Pour Water On Congress Act, and this is largely McConnell's fault.

If Manchin and Sinema agreed to change the rules to bring back the active filibuster it would allow more bills to move forward, but each one would almost certainly take DAYS or WEEKS to get passed. If we thought Republicans were obstructionist before, just imagine what they'd do if Democrats could simply wait them out. What will happen is that a handful of them will decide to filibuster, one after another, each one holding the floor for at least day, preventing anything from getting done. Because the other side doesn't have the 60 votes to stop them, they would keep talking until they got tired, then tag out for someone else. The thing is, once you stop talking, you can't start talking again, so they wouldn't be able to filibuster indefinitely, they couldn't recharge and give it another go, they'd have one shot each. Imagine dozens of Republicans holding the floor hostage for weeks, maybe months if they were dedicated enough; if every senator held the floor for a full day, that's 50 days, over a month and a half. Now, a lot of senators are old men who probably couldn't last that long, but others like Josh Hawley are quite young and would try for a publicity stunt by holding out for the longest filibuster ever (I could imagine him making it 2 or 3 days if he was dedicated enough, which would make him a Republican superstar and guarantee him the presidency).

Of course, such a prolonged filibuster would be torn to shreds by the media; just like a government shutdown, eventually popular opinion would turn against the obstructionists, and they'd eventually have to concede. The majority of Americans blamed the Republicans for the shutdowns under Obama AND Trump, so any prolonged filibuster would largely be seen as a waste of time (though it would score them big political points from their bases, it would unite the opposition against them, hurting their chances at re-election). It's all a game, and the outcome depends on the will of the players.

I could see some of the hardliners like Ted Cruz, Tom Cotton, Rick Scott, Josh Hawley, or Lindsey Graham filibustering until the cows come home and hoping to swing public opinion in their favor, but I think eventually even the other Republicans would grow tired of having to sit through days or weeks of meaningless noise and would vote to stop them and move the bill forward.

If by some miracle the Democrats manage to increase their majority in 2022, then Joe Manchin will almost certainly leave the party and start caucusing with the Republicans. He's in West Virginia, one of the most conservative states in the country; their own governor Jim Justice was elected as a Democrat in 2016 and became a Republican immediately after being sworn in. There's even precedent for Manchin to switch parties before the midterms; in 2001 the Senate was tied 50-50 for the first time, with Republicans having the majority because Dick Cheney was VP to break ties, but Vermont Republican Jim Jeffords became an independent and began caucusing with the Democrats instead, giving them the 51-49 majority until 2003 (fun fact: Jeffords was succeeded by none other than Bernie Sanders). I could see Manchin becoming an independent and caucusing with the Republicans to try and swing public opinion towards the conservatives. A slim majority of independents are left-leaning, with both independent senators caucusing with the Democrats (Bernie Sanders of Vermont and Angus King of Maine). If Manchin became an independent and caucused with the Republicans, it would give the right-leaning independents someone to latch onto, allowing Republicans to make gains with centrists and moderates. Manchin has a snowball's chance in hell of winning re-election in 2024 as a Democrat; I don't think he's gonna go down like Doug Jones of Alabama and just let himself be voted out, he'll either decline to run at all or run as a conservative independent with Republican support (especially if Democrats keep the majority in 2022, then he'll see no point in staying on their side; they won't need him anymore)

2022 will be close, especially if For The People fails in the Senate. If it goes through, Democrats might be able to hold onto Georgia and Arizona, and could very possibly pick up Wisconsin and Pennsylvania. If it doesn't go through, then Georgia is gone, Arizona will be super close, and they'd stand to lose New Hampshire (it's been leaning further right in recent years; Republicans just flipped both houses of the state legislature).

Biden is already more popular than Trump, and Republican opposition isn't going to be nearly as united as it was against Obama for completely unknowable reasons *cough*cough*White*cough* That's not to say Republicans will cooperate with him, just that they won't be able to portray him as the super-liberal boogeyman they want him to be. He is a moderate centrist, he has been his entire career, Republicans offer him a modicum of respect because they've known him for decades, so I figure he'll stand a good chance at winning re-election in 2024, especially if the bill passes. If not, then he'll probably win the popular vote and lose the electoral college because of Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania.

I don't see any one particular future as being the most plausible, I see a web of five or six possible futures with varying degrees of plausibility. If Democrats lose the senate in 2022, Biden won't get a single Supreme Court justice, paving way for a 7-2, 8-1, or God forbid a 9-0 conservative unanimity. SCOTUS will be the deciding factor going forward; Breyer needs to retire RIGHT FUCKING NOW so Biden can replace him with someone young, though Manchin will likely hold any appointments hostage, playing kingmaker, insisting that Biden only put forward nominees with bipartisan support. Remember, he voted for 2 of Trump's 3 justices, and only voted against the 3rd because it was too close to the election and he thought the Republicans were being hypocritical (they refused to let Obama seat anyone in 2016 citing the election, but railroaded through Asshole Conservative Barbie in 2020 without hesitation). It's not as though Biden's nominees would have been super-liberal either way, but Manchin will ensure they're as moderate as possible, turning a safe 6-3 into 6-2-1 or even 7-2. He also opposes expanding the Supreme Court, which Republicans will not hesitate to do if the filibuster is reformed. They would gladly wait out every single Democrat for months if need be just to turn 6-3 into 7-3, 8-3, 13-3, 435-3, whatever they want! Sky's the limit. Republicans have no morals, they only care about holding onto power by any means necessary.

If we don't change course as a country right now, things will only get worse going forward. We have never been this politically divided before; even during the Civil War both parties had conservative and liberal wings (like the copperheads and war democrats). Republicans never controlled the House under Ronald Reagan, but enough conservative Democrats sided with him to help him push his agenda anyway. Things are so polarized right now I can't imagine either side working together ever again. Nothing short of a constitutional convention or another civil war will make the parties come together, and even then the Democrats would end up compromising and appeasing much more then the Republicans. It's all going to boil over in the near future; it nearly boiled over in 2020, and if the state Republicans start rigging elections then it'll likely boil over in 2024 or 2025.

America as it exists today will not make it to 2030.