woodguru

In an area of undefined state's power versus federal power in federal e******ns, this looks to cause a real problem for trump when states have v****g laws in their constitutions that clearly define politicians not being able to run for e******n ever again if they were involved in any degree of failing to enforce the constitution or participate in any way with an i**********n or attempt to overturn an e******n.

Many states have such laws on the books, and the legislative control to deny trump from being put on their state's b****ts...and yes, there are red states that see eye to eye with this.

https://www.rawstory.com/trump-b****t-2024/?utm_source=push_notifications

woodguru

If states can pull unconstitutionally biased crap to favor trump, what's to keep them from interfering with his chances of being elected?

woodguru

And this starts to spotlight the inherent dangers of the e*******l college system...it's time to allocate e*******l v**es both in fairer numbers, and split them according to how the v**e goes

liberalhunter Loc: Your mom's house

SHUT UP!!.



Sir whinesalot

WEBCO

Be careful what you wish for. Biden falls into the "attemted to change" an e******n group

Justice101

President Biden is almost certain to be Democrats' pick for president in 2024, but he might not win the first two contests of the primary season if they're in the traditional first-to-v**e states of Iowa and New Hampshire — a scenario that seems increasingly likely.

Driving the news: Biden's team is indicating he won't be on the b****ts in those states if they v**e before South Carolina, his choice to have the first primary.

Why it matters: Democrats in Iowa and New Hampshire could defy Biden and move ahead with their contests — even as the party warns it will strip them of their national convention delegates if they jump the gun.

That sets up a scenario in which Robert F. Kennedy Jr. or another long-shot Democrat could win those states — and embarrass the president.
State of play: Since Biden’s surprise decision last December to make South Carolina the first state in Democrats' 2024 season with a primary on Feb. 3, New Hampshire Democrats have openly bashed the White House and the Democratic National Committee.

The new calendar put New Hampshire and Nevada v****g second — a few days after South Carolina — but New Hampshire Democrats note that their state law requires them to have the nation's first primary, and many vow to keep it that way.
Iowa Democrats haven't been as publicly hostile over Biden's move. But in the past two months they've quietly moved to hold their contest the same day as Iowa Republicans — in January, but with a mail-in option for b****ts.
That could put Iowa first on the Democrats' calendar — but New Hampshire lawmakers and party officials have signaled they may then attempt to move ahead of Iowa.
In touting South Carolina to kick off the primary season, Biden’s team has said it wanted v****g to start in a racially diverse state to give minorities more of a say in early p**********l contests.

New Hampshire was about 87% white in the 2020 Census, while Iowa was about 83% white. South Carolina was about 62% white.
Biden also has fond memories of South Carolina, where his primary victory in 2020 propelled him to the Democratic nomination. He has struggled in Iowa and New Hampshire contests in the past, and his team saw political security in pushing for South Carolina to v**e first.
Between the lines: Top Iowa and New Hampshire Democrats fume that the DNC’s lengthy process for determining the primary calendar — which included long written proposals, presentations, and travel — felt like needless theater for a pre-determined outcome.

Biden’s proposed calendar stunned many top Democrats — even DNC chair Jamie Harrison, who is from South Carolina, said he wasn't given a heads-up before the decision.
https://www.axios.com/2023/06/15/iowa-new-hampshire-biden-lose-2024-primaries-e******n

BIRDMAN

🤤🤤🤤🤤

dtucker300 Loc: Vista, CA

If it hadn't been for SC in 2020, Bidens p**********l bid would have been derailed. The problem is that the Democrats can manipulate their primaries more to get the outcome the party establishment wants because of super-delegates.

LogicallyRight Loc: Chicago

***if they were involved in any degree of failing to enforce the constitution or participate in any way with an i**********n or attempt to overturn an elect
>>>Since that doesn't include Trump as any intelligent person would know, there is no problem. And SCOTUS would throw it out in a heart beat.

LogicallyRight Loc: Chicago

I guess some democrats are fighting back against the DNC controlling the b****ts to favor one candidate.

Justice101

I am guessing that some democrats really want to find a way around getting Biden re-elected when his approval polling has been so poor. Even some of the left-leaning news sites have been giving the "Old Yeller" a bad time.

Old yeller: Biden's private fury
https://www.axios.com/2023/07/10/biden-temper-us-president

https://www.bizpacreview.com/2023/07/03/monsters-biden-hammered-over-ny-times-report-he-told-aids-to-only-count-6-grandchildren-not-h****rs-lovechild-1373920/

woodguru

On this subject I'm gonna have to say that I've never understood why any state should get a precedent setting or altering lead on this primary process...looking at the dynamics it does seem that it alters or influences later primaries, who's to say for better or worse?

woodguru

Scotus is twisting themselves in knots on issues of what states have power and what they don't, they need to be consistently coherent on how one thing applies to others. There are things that need to be called at a federal level and things that states should have control over, and the current supreme court is not being consistent

woodguru

Actually there have been issues there concerning the party favoring establishment picks over regional favorites.

WEBCO

The things that the federal government has control over are actually listed in the constitution, I believe.