Thread Rating:

kewlj
kewlj
Joined: Apr 17, 2012
  • Threads: 214
  • Posts: 4422
January 8th, 2016 at 9:46:06 AM permalink
Quote: ams288

That is an interesting question (that I have no clue what the answer is). Tons of cases get dismissed due to the plaintiff not having standing. Does any random citizen have the right to sue over this...? Who knows? It's never been tested.



I have seen a few "legal experts" on a couple different channels suggest that a suit brought by a voter would be dismissed because the voter had no standing and was not an injured party. They both said a suit would need to be brought by another candidate to having legal standing as an injured party.

I found this a little shocking because the right to vote is one of our most sacred rights and if a candidate who is not eligible is running, the voter has been disenfranchised and his right to vote (for an eligible candidate) taken away.
Wizard
Administrator
Wizard
Joined: Oct 14, 2009
  • Threads: 1388
  • Posts: 23329
January 8th, 2016 at 11:13:09 AM permalink
Quote: SanchoPanza

Yup. A Trump Tower, of all things, is at the edge of the Pacific. And Johns Hopkins has a sizable medical tourism installation there. Not to mention all the fast-food franchisees.



Are you sure those things aren't in the financial district? The Canal Zone is very residential with American-looking single-family houses. I didn't notice one fast food joint in that part of the city.
It's not whether you win or lose; it's whether or not you had a good bet.
RonC
RonC
Joined: Jan 18, 2010
  • Threads: 40
  • Posts: 4874
January 9th, 2016 at 4:54:42 AM permalink
Quote: kewlj

I have seen a few "legal experts" on a couple different channels suggest that a suit brought by a voter would be dismissed because the voter had no standing and was not an injured party. They both said a suit would need to be brought by another candidate to having legal standing as an injured party.

I found this a little shocking because the right to vote is one of our most sacred rights and if a candidate who is not eligible is running, the voter has been disenfranchised and his right to vote (for an eligible candidate) taken away.



I have heard similar things. That is why I asked he question about "standing"--I really don't understand it, but it sounds like it should mean someone that was potentially harmed by the defendant in the lawsuit. If i wasn't harmed, why would I sue and why would it be allowed to be heard in court beyond initial motions?

The people harmed by an ineligible candidate who wins the nomination might be different than those harmed by that candidate winning the election, but would an actual voter have standing at some point once the ineligible person was sworn in to office?
kewlj
kewlj
Joined: Apr 17, 2012
  • Threads: 214
  • Posts: 4422
January 10th, 2016 at 8:54:52 AM permalink
There is an interesting scenario developing that I believe is becoming more and more of a very odd possibility.

Cruz wins Iowa, which looks likely. Trump wins New Hampshire, which seems equally as likely.

Next up South Carolina: Polls show Trump with a comfortable lead, but really the South Carolina republican electorate is much closer to Iowa, with a large evangelical voting block. So what if Cruz wins South Carolina. At that point with March 1st, on the horizon win a dozen or so primaries, half of which are in the deep south (Cruz strength), Cruz could be on the verge of certainly becoming the front runner, the one to beat.

At that point, the republican establishment would need to decide who out of Trump or Cruz they want to stop more. Which one of those two would be weaker in a general election and worse for the parties as far losing senate and congressional seats. At that point the republican establishment, complete with Super Pak money might begin an 'uneasy' support of Donald Trump. THAT would be kind of funny.
terapined
terapined
Joined: Dec 1, 2012
  • Threads: 86
  • Posts: 5800
January 10th, 2016 at 10:28:47 AM permalink
Quote: kewlj

There is an interesting scenario developing that I believe is becoming more and more of a very odd possibility.

Cruz wins Iowa, which looks likely. Trump wins New Hampshire, which seems equally as likely.

Next up South Carolina: Polls show Trump with a comfortable lead, but really the South Carolina republican electorate is much closer to Iowa, with a large evangelical voting block. So what if Cruz wins South Carolina. At that point with March 1st, on the horizon win a dozen or so primaries, half of which are in the deep south (Cruz strength), Cruz could be on the verge of certainly becoming the front runner, the one to beat.

At that point, the republican establishment would need to decide who out of Trump or Cruz they want to stop more. Which one of those two would be weaker in a general election and worse for the parties as far losing senate and congressional seats. At that point the republican establishment, complete with Super Pak money might begin an 'uneasy' support of Donald Trump. THAT would be kind of funny.



Iowa and SC meaningless, demographics don't match the country. Many future Presidents or nomination winners have lost both states, especially IA
NH important, Future Presidents rarely lose NH
"Everybody's bragging and drinking that wine, I can tell the Queen of Diamonds by the way she shines, Come to Daddy on an inside straight, I got no chance of losing this time" -Grateful Dead- "Loser"
kewlj
kewlj
Joined: Apr 17, 2012
  • Threads: 214
  • Posts: 4422
January 10th, 2016 at 1:36:36 PM permalink
Quote: terapined

Iowa and SC meaningless, demographics don't match the country. Many future Presidents or nomination winners have lost both states, especially IA
NH important, Future Presidents rarely lose NH



That's true, but the republicans purposely re-arranged the primary schedule this year, so that the southern states would go earlier. That March 1 date is being called the SEC primary, because a large number of southern states (states that have college teams in the SEC conference) are participating.

So someone strong in the southern states will jump out to an early lead, which has never happened before. And perception being half the battle, you start racking up many early wins, and all of the sudden voters see you as the front runner and polls become more favorable to you in places that aren't your stronghold. This is exactly what some of the GOP part bigwigs are now fearing with Cruz.
rxwine
rxwine
Joined: Feb 28, 2010
  • Threads: 171
  • Posts: 10306
January 10th, 2016 at 3:18:57 PM permalink
Quote: kewlj

This is exactly what some of the GOP part bigwigs are now fearing with Cruz.



Regardless of whether I agree with him, I see Cruz as a predictable candidate. The GOP may not want him in particular, but he looks like a safer choice than Trump.

I don't think any party on either side, or even third parties want candidates they can't at least figure out if not control to some extent.
Quasimodo? Does that name ring a bell?
rxwine
rxwine
Joined: Feb 28, 2010
  • Threads: 171
  • Posts: 10306
January 10th, 2016 at 3:22:33 PM permalink
The reason I believe this, is parties aren't actually just filled with followers. There's a bunch of power players eventually in all parties.
Quasimodo? Does that name ring a bell?
ams288
ams288
Joined: Sep 26, 2012
  • Threads: 22
  • Posts: 5461
January 10th, 2016 at 6:43:48 PM permalink
Personally, I think Cruz would be much easier to beat than Trump (I do think either of them would lose the general election against Hillary or Bernie).

Trump attracts disenfranchised people who may not feel compelled for any generic Republican. Cruz only appeals to the far-right base.
Ding Dong the Witch is Dead
kewlj
kewlj
Joined: Apr 17, 2012
  • Threads: 214
  • Posts: 4422
January 12th, 2016 at 12:42:52 AM permalink
So most of the prediction and betting markets have Trump, Cruz and Rubio as the 3 republicans with a legitimate chance at the republican nomination. Most have all 3 somewhere between 2-1 and 3-1 and most have Rubio as the slight favorite.

I am trying to visualize the path each would need to win.

Cruz: need to win Iowa. He will do poorly in New Hampshire. He could do well in South Carolina even though he trails in the polls, because that electorate is much like Iowa with a large evangelical population. Then on March first with 12 primaries including 6 southern states, he would need to win the southern states and hope that propels him to be seen as the front runner and can gain support in moderate places that shouldn't be all that favorable to him. Kind of a long-shot...everything has to fall just right.

Trump: I don't think it matters all that much if he wins Iowa or finishes a close second. He is going to win New Hampshire big. If he is viewed as the front runner then and wins South Carolina, it could be all but over. If Trump doesn't win South Carolina, he will still be a co-front runner with a lot of states that he is running strong coming up.

Rubio: I honestly don't see this guy's path. Obviously he needs to emerge as the 'establishment' candidate to have any chance, which means consolidating the establishment vote behind him. I guess Kasich and Christie could drop out after New Hampshire as they have sort of put all their eggs in one basket, trying to win there. Jeb has done likewise, but I don't see him dropping out.

So say Rubio finishes a distant 3rd in Iowa, and finishes a distant 2nd or 3rd in New Hampshire. South Carolina up next, isn't a place he should do well. I mean where does he win? You have to win one of the early states, to continue....distant seconds and thirds won't get it done.

After South Carolina is Nevada. I haven't seen recent polls, but the last I saw Rubio wasn't running too well here. He campaigns here, calling Nevada his "childhood home". He lived in Henderson from age 8 until 11. Strange thing about that, raised Roman Catholic and still a Roman Catholic today, during their 3 years living here, Rubio's family attended the Church of Latter Day Saints (Mormon). Just a strange little side thing that hasn't been explained. But I haven't got the impression that the "childhood home" status is getting him much support here.

So again, where does he win? Maybe Florida, but if Jeb is still around maybe not even there. Last poll I saw there had Trump in front of both Rubio and Bush in their home state. I am just not sure where the path for Rubio is?

Thoughts?

  • Jump to: