Just to build on a point that I made in an earlier post, what might happen if Donald Trump does not win a majority of the delegates heading into the Republican National Convention is far from clear because that body can adopt any rules that it wants to count its votes.
Here's a simple example. In 1980, Ted Kennedy put a motion on the floor of the Democratic National Convention to amend the rules and say that the delegates could vote for anyone on the first ballot. He did this because he was far behind President Carter after the primaries. Given that the President had a majority in that Convention, the motion to amend the rules went nowhere. In a convention where no candidate has a majority, though, this sort of proposal could easily pass. Some states purport to have rules that bind its party delegates to vote for candidates on the first ballot of the national convention, but the Supreme Court's cases on how state law may regulate national conventions suggest strongly that the state's interest is trumped (ahem) by the party's First Amendment right of association. See Democratic Party v. Wisconsin, 450 U.S. 107 (1981).
The Rules Committee would have a lot of power here, but expectations and wishes of the voters (and candidates to some extent) will play a large role here. And, if no candidate has the requisite majority, a fairly likely result would still be a first ballot giving each the chance to vote for their candidate to have them express the interests of those who voted for them. Then, a rule can cover what might happen on the second ballot with each candidate instructing their delegates as the candidates deem proper.
ReplyDeleteStill think it's irrelevant: Trump is on track to win on the first ballot. He may not come in with an absolute majority of pledged delegates, but the delegates for the candidates who've dropped out by the convention are free to vote for whoever on the first ballot, and he won't need many of their votes to go over the top.
ReplyDelete"the delegates for the candidates who've dropped out by the convention are free to vote for whoever on the first ballot"
ReplyDeleteDepending on what the Rules Committee determines.
The article notes in fact that some states have laws pledging delegates to vote for the candidates selected by the voters. Do the laws say that if a candidate "suspends" their campaign, which is an informal move, that rules don't apply?
I note, e.g., that in 2012 that Ron Paul and Santorum received some votes at the convention. Santorum announced he was suspending his campaign in April. He personally released the delegates he had, so yes, only a few of them voted for him. But, if he didn't release them, did the rules say they were 'free' to vote for whomever?
The very fact that Trump would need votes from delegates pledged to candidates who've dropped out, demonstrates that he is not now "on track" to win on the first ballot. If he has a very good day tomorrow, though, he might well be then.
ReplyDeleteIf he arrives at the convention short five delegates, the odds that only 4 of the free delegates will vote for him on the first ballot are pretty slim. Especially when Carson, who is fairly well respected by Republicans, has endorsed him. I think it's worth recognizing that.
ReplyDeleteRealistically, if he arrives at the convention only short in the single digits, it's about as good as having an absolute majority.
One big problem with all these contested convention scenarios is that this is all going to occur on live television. (And all the networks are going to rediscover their love of covering political conventions if Cleveland is contested.)
ReplyDeleteSo any attempt to change party rules to deny Trump the nomination is going to be broadcast live as it happens. With all the pissed off Trump supporters talking to any reporter they can find about it.
If I were an RNC official, I'd be scared to death of that scenario.
If Trump has a majority of delegates, the chances of rule change freeing the delegates in the first round has a chance of passing between nil and none. Disenfranchising the voters is such a manner would tear apart the party and guarantee both a Trump independent run and a Clinton victory.
ReplyDeleteThe more likely and interesting scenario is if Kasich and/or Rubio stay in after Tuesday and Trump enters the convention with a plurality of delegates insufficient to secure the nomination, but is the only candidate who has won enough states outright to be placed on the first ballot - the Romney Rule. Will the convention change the Romney Rule to allow in one or more of the other active candidates? What will the unpledged delegates do with or without such a rule change?
Here is Team Cruz's strategy to secure a plurality to majority of the delegates for their candidate and prevent the above scenario from occurring.
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/03/inside-cruzs-state-by-state-plan-to-defeat-trump-220702?lo=ap_a1
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2016/01/15/threat_of_brokered_convention_fuels_gop_rules_panel_129335.html
ReplyDelete"The most important time during the Republican Convention could be the week leading up to the convention.
That is when GOP delegates and Republican National Committee members will gather to work out the rules governing the four-day gathering this summer."
I'm not sure how much this will be televised.
I'm not sure how much this will be televised.
ReplyDelete# posted by Blogger Joe : 4:41 PM
The part where Trump's thugs take over the convention hall will probably be televised.
BB:
ReplyDeleteThe delegates are all party members and not Trump's fanboys.
This is why it will be very difficult for Trump to win once the delegates start being released under the current party rules after the first ballot.
I'm not talking about his delegates. You saw what happened this weekend. What do you think is going to happen if he has more delegates than anyone else and they try to take the nomination away from him?
ReplyDeleteBB:
ReplyDeleteDude, this past week featured multiple totalitarian mobs feeling the Bern and attempting to silence Trump. If the GOP denied Trump the nomination, these political gangsters would cheer, not riot.
Trump supporters do not engage in mob violence. At most, individual Trump fanboys have scuffled with the assh_oles heckling their idol. They will not be storming the RNC.
Sure thing. Good luck with that.
ReplyDeleteDay started well for Trump:
ReplyDeletehttp://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/donald-trump-northern-mariana-islands
Building a wall around the Marianas seems unnecessary. They already have a trench.
ReplyDelete"He has a point"
ReplyDelete"I have to look at what is practical. I didn't see a path for Kasich, who I like, or for Rubio, who I like. As far as Cruz is concerned, I don't think he's going to be able to draw independents and Democrats unless he has some kind of miraculous change," he continued. "Is there another scenario that I would have preferred? Yes, but that scenario isn't available."
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/ben-carson-trump-only-4-years
Joe, that's exciting news for followers of 23 Karat-top White Citizens United Republican leading presidential candidate Donald Trump.
ReplyDeleteWith Global Warming, might the Marianas soon be, in financial parlance, "under water" like Trump W(h)ine, Trump Stakes (sic, for Vampire billionaires), and Trump Vodka?
And is BB suggesting that The Donald suffers from trench mouth?
Carson: ""I have to look at what is practical. I didn't see a path for Kasich, who I like, or for Rubio, who I like. As far as Cruz is concerned, I don't think he's going to be able to draw independents and Democrats unless he has some kind of miraculous change."
ReplyDeleteThat is interesting since Cruz and Carson's policies are nearly indistinguishable. Cruz is more policy savvy and a far better public speaker.
In any case, all the current Republican candidates apart from Trump are leading Hillary in Dem leaning registered voter polling whose 2012 demographics look nothing like the actual voting so far in 2016. Among likely 2016 voters, the deeply unpopular Clinton would lose to Cruz, Kasich or Rubio in a head to head contest.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/2016_presidential_race.html
These poll numbers are GREAT news for John McCain!
ReplyDelete"They will not be storming the RNC."
ReplyDeleteIf Trump goes to the convention with a majority of delegates, and they find some way to deny him the nomination anyway, or if he's neck and neck with Cruz, and they find some way to give the nomination to somebody else, that's going to change.
A lot of Republicans harbor a deep hatred towards the party establishment, but are open to the possiblity that the party can be reformed. They steal this year's Presidential nomination, I think we can give up on that prospect, and set destroying the Republican party, at least the national party, as a goal.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI don't think the Republican Party would deny Trump the nomination if he obtained a majority of the delegates but some of his supporters -- Trump already is speaking about "arbitrary" majority rules to cover himself if this occurs -- will toss out "steal" if he wins like 48% and doesn't get the nomination.
ReplyDeleteThey've got a guy on the rules committee going around talking up the idea that the delegates aren't bound even on the first ballot. So, don't rule out their attempting to steal the nomination, they're clearly thinking about doing it, and throwing out trial balloons.
ReplyDeleteAnd, like I said, if he doesn't make 50%, the only alternative to him that wouldn't tear the party apart would be Cruz.
Who knows what Trump supporters will do at the BALLOT BOX box if their idol loses the nomination. However, there is little chance they will attempt to recreate the 1968 Chicago DNC.
ReplyDeleteset destroying the Republican party, at least the national party, as a goal.
ReplyDeleteAt last a goal that Brett and I can share. :)
Oh, I expect that, in that eventuality, the Democratic party will be laboring mightily to preserve the GOP.
ReplyDeleteA two party system WILL have two parties, and if the GOP went the way of the Whigs, something else would replace it. The Democratic party hardly wants the GOP replaced with an effective opposition party. It's very much in their interest to preserve the GOP in a pathologically broken state.
Some "guy" is "going around" saying something so "they" are thinking about it? Okay.
ReplyDeleteI don't think it likely but ruling anything out at this point is probably not worth the candle -- you know, CYA and all that. Still, the candidates already are saying if Trump wins the most votes (Cruz joked "unless he shoots someone on the street"), they would support him as the nominee. So, yes, I doubt otherwise.
If Trump doesn't get the nomination, yes, figure it would be Cruz.
I meant "a majority."
ReplyDeleteMark Field is not a typical person even if the Democrats wanted to treat a sick Republican Party as the Ottoman Empire was said to be in the 19th Century by the powers of Europe. He's all principled and stuff.
Heh.
ReplyDelete"Some guy" being a member of the rules committee in this case. That is to say, one of the guys who actually gets to decide these sorts of things, rather than a random guy off the street.
ReplyDeleteJust trial balloons at this point, and they're drawing enough fire that I suspect they'll reconsider the notion. But, yes, they are thinking about doing it.
However, there is little chance they will attempt to recreate the 1968 Chicago DNC.
ReplyDelete# posted by Blogger Bart DePalma : 2:06 PM
That would get great ratings. Trump is all about the ratings.
SPAM I AM! continues his open shilling for Ted Cruz and is revealing recently some possible nastiness about Donald Trump. Brett at an earlier thread seemed to be riding the coattails of SPAM I AM! on Cruz. But on this thread, Brett seems to have reverted to his natural candidate Donald Trump (aka White Citizens United camp). Those with a little time might take a peek at a fairly lengthy essay over at TomDispatch.com:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.tomdispatch.com/post/176114/tomgram%3A_bob_dreyfuss%2C_will_the_donald_rally_the_militias_and_the_right-to-carry_movement/#more
by Bob Dreyfuss with the provocative title: "Will the Donald Rally the Militia and the Right-to-Carry Movement?" Note in particular the section headed "The Second Amendment Society."
I have not been participating in these recent threads to any significant extent, as I have been thinking back to the 1968 presidential campaign. While Nixon was tricky, he did not openly toss political bombs as have Trump and the other GOP hopefuls in this 2016 campaign. The furor of course was at the Democrats' convention in 1968, what with the anti-Vietnam movement. I do not look forward to a repeat this year of anything like that. This memory of the 1968 Democrat convention came to mind as I read Dreyfuss' essay. The world is more of a tinder box today than it was in 1968.
Those who take the time to read Dreyfuss' essay (including the Introduction by Tom Englehardt) might consider if the essay profiles any of the usual suspects.
Rubio is out; from the commentary, sounds like his delegates are unbound though as noted the rules can change there. Rubio, Carson (a handful) and some unbound states/areas is now somewhere around 250 though some of those will be selected before the convention by my understanding.
ReplyDeleteThis site has contracted a nasty redirect ad.
ReplyDeleteIt has had problems in the past ad-wise.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2016-03-11/republicans-new-target-the-pre-convention
Who knows what Trump supporters will do at the BALLOT BOX box if their idol loses the nomination. However, there is little chance they will attempt to recreate the 1968 Chicago DNC.
ReplyDeleteI could very well see at least some Trump supporters violently rioting in Cleveland if they perceive the party to have stolen the nomination from him.
Rubio is out
ReplyDeleteKasich did his job denying Trump the Ohio delegates. Now, he needs to suspend his campaign for the good of the party and the country.
If Kasich refuses to get out, Cruz needs to offer him the VP or any other position he wants in a Cruz administration to get on board the #nevertrump bandwagon.
I doubt that Kasich has any interest in helping Cruz. Cruz is widely despised. At this point Kasich probably sees himself as the GOP's best chance of winning, and he's probably right.
ReplyDeleteThese numbers are great for Rafael Cruz (R-Calgary)!
ReplyDeleteCruz still has a shot to win Missouri, which would make him a winner of 2/13 of the Old Confederacy. And, Cruz/Kasich split the anti-Trump vote in Illinois. Wonder how that will work in the NE and the West Coast.
ReplyDeleteMr. W:
ReplyDeleteOnce again, Rubio and Kasich are dividing the vote in states that the exit polling says Cruz would win easily one-on-one against Trump.
Rubio has done the honorable thing and withdrawn. Kasch needs to enjoy his only win in the primaries tonight and withdraw tomorrow. Katich's remaining in the race is Trump's clearest path to the nomination.
There's no way Kasich is getting out, Bart.
ReplyDeleteI do take your point that if he did get out, Cruz would have a chance-- though I would stress, only a chance-- of beating Trump. The reason I say only a chance is because the remaining states are actually mostly states that Trump is stronger in than Cruz. But what you are saying is at least possible.
The problem is, this is where the chickens of Cruz come home to roost. A bunch of key party actors basically despise Cruz. If that were not true, the logic of what you are saying would actually be seen as unimpeachable. But they hate him, and there's a fair number of key Republican party actors who would love to see Ted Cruz lose even if it means Donald Trump wins. So the push to get Kasich out is going to be half-hearted, and plenty of people are going to be saying Kasich should stay in and Cruz and Kasich should try to work together to beat Trump in different states, leading to a contested convention.
I think in the end, Trump is your nominee.
"Rubio has done the honorable thing and withdrawn."
ReplyDeleteBut dishonorably late. Is there anything more pathetic than waiting to do the right thing until it's too late? If you never do it, it might at least be said in your defense that you weren't aware it was the right thing to do.
"A bunch of key party actors basically despise Cruz. If that were not true, the logic of what you are saying would actually be seen as unimpeachable."
I wouldn't go so far as to say any candidate those "key party actors" would despise would be desirable, but no candidate worth electing is going to be liked by them. They want something different from what the party's voters want, and they hate anybody who'd deliver what the party's base is asking for.
If Cruz were actually liked or respected by them, it would be a bad sign.
BREAKING NEWS!
ReplyDeleteREPUBLICAN KONVENTION KHAOS KOMING! WILL REPUBLICANS WHIG-OUT?
Bart, you seem to me to be standing on the deck of a sinking U.S.S. Cruz with your arms around the mast pulling upward with all your might. Why so much effort? Do you think Cruz, who has shown a very limited regional appeal despite his substantial war chest would be a good nominee? Think about this: Has there ever, at least in the modern era, been a GOP nominee that performed as pathetically as Cruz did in the key swing states of Florida and Ohio?
ReplyDeleteThe race goes on to Arizona and Utah, but then the next big prize is New York. Good luck there Mr. 'New York Values' Rafael!
They want something different from what the party's voters want, and they hate anybody who'd deliver what the party's base is asking for.
ReplyDelete# posted by Blogger Brett : 5:20 AM
What, exactly, is the "base" asking for that the "key party actors" refuse to give them? The only thing the "key party actors" really care about is lowering taxes for the wealthy.
No, they also care about a supply of cheap labor that doesn't dare report being abused because they're subject to deportation.
ReplyDeletePerhaps SPAM I AM!'s Cruzaffliction may evolve into (drum roll) ... "TRUMPTED!" in recognition of "The Great White."
ReplyDeleteAnd Mr. W's casting of SPAM I AM! a la Leonardo DiCaprio as the star of the upcoming made-for-TV movie "The Sinking of U.S.[sic, Canada] S. Cruz" documenting the "CRUZ CANADACY" is brilliant. [Movie subtitle: MASTED!"]
Mr. Why so much effort?
ReplyDeleteBoth the progressive Democrat and GOP establishments are wed to a corrupt and failing system. The GOP (and the Democrats when they are interested in a national majority) campaign right and govern left.
Apart from Paul, Cruz is the only one who understands the problem and attempted to govern the same way he campaigned. I disagree with Paul's isolationist foreign policy.
The alternative is a progressive plutocrat RINO who is part of the corruption.
Do you think Cruz, who has shown a very limited regional appeal despite his substantial war chest would be a good nominee?
During the general election, Cruz would defeat Clinton in a walk in a one-on-one election. The only way the deeply unpopular Clinton wins is if Trump goes independent or (maybe) one-on-one against Trump.
Has there ever, at least in the modern era, been a GOP nominee that performed as pathetically as Cruz did in the key swing states of Florida and Ohio?
Cruz would have won Ohio and been competitive in FL one-on-one with Trump without the home state candidates drawing away the non-Trump vote.
The Texas senator has two problems: (1) Cruz is the second choice behind Trump among most of the anti-establishment vote that he was depending on to win the primaries and election, and (2) the non-Trump majority is being split three ways with Kasich and Rubio.
The latter problem goes away if Kasich withdraws.
Once the latter problem is solved, Cruz has a path to the nomination and the former problem disappears in the general election if Trump does not run as an Independent.
It is more than possible that Kasich's pride and/or establishment fear of Cruz will keep Kasich in to give the nomination to Trump. Although he trashes party outreach to hispanics, Trump is FAR closer to the establishment than Cruz and has been playing the corruption game for decades.
There is little more Cruz can do apart from offering Kasich a deal to get out.
No, they also care about a supply of cheap labor that doesn't dare report being abused because they're subject to deportation.
ReplyDelete# posted by Blogger Brett : 8:58 AM
You're kind of pale for a farm worker.
Here's the thing. The "key party actors" aren't going to deport 11 million migrants and build a giant wall because they can't do it. Neither can Trump. It's just an act to get you to vote for them.
During the general election, Cruz would defeat Clinton in a walk in a one-on-one election.
ReplyDelete# posted by Blogger Bart DePalma : 9:13 AM
You are delusional. Cruz is a despicable troll whose "ideas" are incredibly unpopular.
"You're kind of pale for a farm worker."
ReplyDeleteAt 57 I'm kind of old and out of shape for a farm worker. Doesn't mean I didn't put in 12 hour days working on the farm on the other side of the river when I was a teen. Right next to Mexican migrant laborers.
Picking radishes at agricultural sub minimum wage is a great motivator to do well in college and get a desk job.
Brett:
ReplyDeleteAmen brother.
I did construction and warehouse work, then was a grunt in the Army, to earn my way through college to get that desk job.
I actually miss the physical work and now have to pay a gym to get in my workouts.
Picking radishes at agricultural sub minimum wage is a great motivator to do well in college and get a desk job.
ReplyDelete# posted by Blogger Brett : 9:28 AM
So your motivation for building the wall is really racism, and not some threat to your job. Amiriteoramirite?
SPAM I AM! informs us:
ReplyDelete"The Texas senator has two problems: (1) Cruz is the second choice behind Trump among most of the anti-establishment vote that he was depending on to win the primaries and election, and (2) the non-Trump majority is being split three ways with Kasich and Rubio."
Alas, SPAM I AM! ignores (inter alia) a third problem: SPAM I AM!'s advocacy of the "CRUZ CANADACY."
Migrants coming to this country and taking crappy jobs is nothing new. It's been happening since the country was founded.
ReplyDelete“I think you’d have riots,” Trump said on CNN.
ReplyDeleteHe must be talking about the victory celebration when he is elected president.
I think Dilan's analysis is convincing.
ReplyDeleteMr. W. notes "Cruz, who has shown a very limited regional appeal," which includes in the South, which you'd think would be his prime battleground. Cruz should have been the won racking up plurality/significant victories there while Trump had more success elsewhere. But, didn't happen. The appeal apparently is the "Texas region" with stray states here and there.
This underlines why it is curious Rubio had some obligation to step out earlier. He did split the vote some places, but so did Cruz (e.g., Rubio vs. Trump could have won VA), while long term having a better chance of winning the general. The Democrats personally wanted Cruz or Trump over him. If the establishment was pushing him in particular, it isn't realistically too shameful for him to want to stay in until his home state voted.
It is noted that it would have been a bad thing if Cruz was liked by the establishment. The issue, as Dilan noted, is more the breadth of the dislike. Plus, it is that again, he didn't get enough support from the voters. A double whammy. If outsider is the name of the game, perhaps some voters remembered he is a U.S. senator who previously was in the Texan government and if he had his druthers, he would have been part of the Bush Administration.
Brett's work history aside, I do wonder how many of Trump's supporters really are pushing to do it over undocumented workers that Republican government officials have aided and abetted by not doing too much to limit supply. A wall being as sensible as the Star Wars idea in the Reagan Administration, that is likely to continue though a Trump/Cruz Administration might make things somewhat harder for such people.
"So your motivation for building the wall is really racism, and not some threat to your job. Amiriteoramirite?"
ReplyDeleteNo, my motivation is that I don't think a country with sky high unemployment for unskilled citizens ought to be importing unskilled laborers. And if it's going to, it ought to be by some legal mechanism, so that they're able to call the police if their employers abuse them.
When I was a teen, I worked at a variety of jobs; Picking radishes, night janitor at the local Vlasic plant. My brother had a prime job working for a local landscaper, laying sod.
Unskilled Americans can't get those sorts of jobs today. You can't compete with illegal laborers whose biggest appeal is that they can't call the police if they're cheated.
I got that college education, today I'm a reasonably well paid engineer, and illegal immigration probably lowers my costs. Illegal immigrants aren't competing with ME for a job. It's the poor they're competing with.
If I were going to oppose immigration to benefit myself, it's skilled immigration I'd oppose. And I don't, I want the brain drain turned up to 11. I only oppose H-1B visas because it's a modern form of indentured servitude. Those guys should get real visas.
No, my motivation is that I don't think a country with sky high unemployment for unskilled citizens ought to be importing unskilled laborers. And if it's going to, it ought to be by some legal mechanism, so that they're able to call the police if their employers abuse them.
ReplyDelete# posted by Blogger Brett : 10:09 AM
We're not importing them. Migrants actually started going back south when Bush drove the economy off a cliff. As for the legal mechanism, the "base" shut that option down and almost destroyed Rubio's political career. So don't tell me that it isn't racism.
Migrants coming to this country and taking crappy jobs is nothing new. It's been happening since the country was founded.
ReplyDeleteEven before that. When George III tried to limit immigration, that became one of the charges against him in the Declaration of Independence: "He has endeavored to prevent the population of these states; for that purpose obstructing the laws for naturalization of foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migration hither...."
Rubio wasn't proposing a legal mechanism for migrant workers, like the former "bracero" program. He was proposing to reward people who'd broken our laws with legal residence, and eventually citizenship. While doing nothing to keep more people from entering the country illegally.
ReplyDeleteLook, unskilled citizens have an insanely high unemployment rate at present. This is due to a number of reasons, but the most blatant is that we're importing unskilled laborers, and then arranging for their (il)legal status to be such that they will be more desirable employees than citizens.
Why would anyone who cares for the poor want to make it harder for them to get jobs?
Rubio wasn't proposing a legal mechanism for migrant workers, like the former "bracero" program. He was proposing to reward people who'd broken our laws with legal residence, and eventually citizenship. While doing nothing to keep more people from entering the country illegally.
ReplyDelete# posted by Blogger Brett : 10:59 AM
That is a big steaming pile. The deal involved wasting huge sums of money to try to keep migrants out. The problem is that there is no amount of money that will convince the "base" that enough is being done to keep the brown horde out. Racism. Enjoy your political exile. It's going to be a long one.
Even before that. When George III tried to limit immigration, that became one of the charges against him in the Declaration of Independence: "He has endeavored to prevent the population of these states; for that purpose obstructing the laws for naturalization of foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migration hither...."
ReplyDelete# posted by Blogger Mark Field : 10:55 AM
I was going to say "since day 2", but I didn't know when the 2nd boat actually arrived.
Mark Field with his appeals to history again. Doesn't he know that we can't rely on what past actors believed but have to go by current understanding?
ReplyDeleteBrett's support for more government to help the needy is duly noted though Rubio's proposal did include aspects to secure the border and add means to target those here without sanction. So, "doing nothing" and similar language continues to be "not the way I think is enough" or "the right way" or some analogue.
It's Judge Merrick Garland.
" The deal involved wasting huge sums of money to try to keep migrants out."
ReplyDeleteThe deal involved increasing incentives for migrants to come here, and the usual worthless promises to do something about keeping them from responding to those incentives.
You can't discuss this as though there weren't a decades long history of broken promises to secure the border. You don't get to trade an amnesty for enforcement when nobody in their right mind believes the promise of enforcement.
What is it about liberals, that they expect the public to not remember that they'd already been lied to, and just believe the latest lie?
There won't be any grand bargain on immigration. Bargains are based on trust, and there is no trust. It would be irrational to extend any trust on this topic. Lucy has snatched the football away too many times.
ReplyDeleteSecure the border, and in a few years we might discuss what to do with the people who'd entered illegally before that was done. Who to grant a route to citizenship, who to deport.
But for now, only securing the border is on the table. Nothing more is open for discussion.
But for now, only securing the border is on the table. Nothing more is open for discussion.
ReplyDelete# posted by Blogger Brett : 11:33 AM
Brett, for the "base" there is no such thing as a secure border. The demographics will not end well for you. Enjoy your time in political exile. You won't be part of the discussion.
Garland? Strikes me as a politically stupid pick. The GOP is going to be intransigent either way, they want this to be political so he should have chosen a qualified minority or woman and let them obstruct him/her and reap the political consequences. Stupid move on Obama's part.
ReplyDelete"and then arranging for their (il)legal status to be such that they will be more desirable employees than citizens."
ReplyDeleteSo wouldn't you support giving them a legal status so they don't have that 'advantage' over the poor native workers you're concerned about?
"So wouldn't you support giving them a legal status so they don't have that 'advantage' over the poor native workers you're concerned about?"
ReplyDeleteThat would partially solve the problem, as low skilled American workers would be then competing with low skilled Mexican workers on a level basis, rather than the latter being given an edge.
But, when the unemployment rate among low skilled American workers is this bad, why should they be required to compete with Mexican workers even on a level basis? US government policy should be based on what is best for Americans, which the interests of foreigners only a side constraint. It isn't in the interest of poor Americans to have any unskilled immigration into the country.
There are lots of poor Americans who are African American and Hispanic, but only the white ones vote for the people who want to build a wall. It does not appear that economics is the driving force for the wall..
ReplyDeleteSo when Brett talks about the interests of poor Americans, be's only talking about the white ones.
ReplyDeleteI was going to say "since day 2", but I didn't know when the 2nd boat actually arrived.
ReplyDeleteIf we limit it to permanent settlements, I'm pretty sure it was 1608 at Jamestown. I had an ancestor on that boat.
I think Garland's a reasonable choice under the circumstances. He's unexceptionable (unimpeachable?) in his qualifications. The Senate is now in the position of blocking his nomination in order to preserve the spot for either Hillary or Il Douche. Other than the latter's partisans, I can't see how the Senators can defend that.
I think "stupid move" is too harsh.
ReplyDeletePutting aside it isn't clear what they all told him behind the scenes about their desire to be cannon fodder, the leading candidates generally had various problems. Paul Watford, the black judge, was subject to a tough confirmation fight for his appeals slot. Republicans could easily tar him as a controversial pick w/o even b.s.-ing that much. Kelly has basically only defense attorney experience -- with a few more years of court of appeals experience, she'd make an ideal choice.
Sri. S. was who I thought he'd choose, but again putting aside his own thoughts, he is under 50 with limited court of appeals experience. That is seen as disqualifying these days. Plus, politically, simply don't know how useful an Indian-American would be. Nominating a young district court judge with a defense background also is dubious. Garland is the good government choice and there simply no credible reason for the Republicans to just block him except political. Most will, which hopefully will hurt them.
And, even there, later this year, it might be politically sensible for them to actually confirm him. Obama comes off as reasonable and a supporter of sane government, which has always been his brand, so to replace you know SCALIA, I can see Garland.
You know, what Mark Field said, with more words.
ReplyDeleteI actually think there is a small chance he'll be confirmed. But, if he's not, that only helps the next time -- hey, we tried to be reasonable ... and this will pay political dividends with the alternatives, on balance, not helping much more there.
Also, this is about Obama too. It isn't just political. Like Sotomayor and Kagan, this is a hindsight "Obama type" choice.
"It isn't in the interest of poor Americans to have any unskilled immigration into the country."
I think, e.g., welcoming refugees is in our interest to some extent given what this country stands for, including economic refugees who will work hard and produce a new batch of American citizens like the immigrant streams of the past. But, maybe we aren't great enough to compete, and more government is needed there.
It isn't in the interest of poor Americans to have any unskilled immigration into the country.
ReplyDelete# posted by Blogger Brett : 12:02 PM
Someone should tell those poor Americans that welcoming poor immigrants is kinda our thing. There's even a statue. And a poem.
"So when Brett talks about the interests of poor Americans, he's only talking about the white ones."
ReplyDeleteThe hallucinatory version of me that lives inside your head is a nasty piece of work, no doubt about that. I'd really hate to meet him in person. But, since he only exists inside your head, fortunately that's never going to happen.
Garland is about what I expected out of Obama, somebody reliably hostile to the 2nd amendment. In my view, hostility to a basic, enumerated civil liberty is a disqualification in even a circuit court judge, let alone a Supreme court justice.
But I understand hostility to several basic constitutional rights has become a litmus test for Supreme court nominees on the left.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete"Reliable hostile" and "hostility" here means "how I understand rights." Again, both sides believe that occurs, it turns on one's position on the rights in question. It is both a "left" and "right" thing in that regard.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/mar/16/merrick-garland-has-very-liberal-view-gun-rights/
This article suggests a thing that is relied upon for this reliability was that when a novel application of the 2A -- that ran contra to every other appeals court's understanding except for the 5th Cir though even they upheld the restriction at issue -- was decided 2-1 by the D.C. Court of Appeals, along with others (including a conservative judge), he voted for a rehearing. Following Supreme Court precedent is sort of the job of a court of appeals judge.
http://mediamatters.org/research/2016/03/16/myths-and-facts-on-the-nomination-of-judge-merr/209286
(gun registry matter also addressed)
The fact someone Obama nominated is not satisfactory to a person who thought Heller was too weak is not surprising though. It's but one issue among a myriad of rights but don't think a Justice Garland would change the basic dynamic of Heller, which allows -- to the dislike of various conservatives -- many gun regulations.
Yes, "how I understand rights." As in, he doesn't understand this right to actually exist in any meaningful form.
ReplyDelete"but don't think a Justice Garland would change the basic dynamic of Heller,"
Of course he would. The first time a test case came along, Heller would get reversed, 5-4. That's a pretty big change in the dynamic.
Yes, if you don't mind the 2nd amendment being razor bladed out of the Bill of Rights, there's nothing terribly objectionable about him. That is not, much to the disgust of the Democratic party, a widespread viewpoint.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteGarland appears to be a standard progressive jurist with a bent toward law enforcement, which likely explains his vote to have an en banc hearing on the Heller decision to reinstate DC's firearm prohibition.
ReplyDeleteObama probably chose Garland because he routinely rubber stamps bureaucratic decrees and will likely defend those of the Obama bureaucracy.
http://www.scotusblog.com/2010/04/the-potential-nomination-of-merrick-garland/
Obama probably nominated a white male with a law enforcement bent to make him as attractive as possible to a GOP Senate who is likely worried that Trump will win the nomination and lose the general election.
The hallucinatory version of me that lives inside your head
ReplyDelete# posted by Blogger Brett : 12:54 PM
Hallucinations have nothing to do with it. There are lots of poor Americans. Only the white ones vote for a wall.
An Examination of Minority Voters’ Views on Immigration
ReplyDelete"In contrast to the leadership of many ethnic advocacy groups, most members of minority groups think immigration is too high.
•African-Americans: 68 percent said it is too high; 4 percent said too low; 14 percent just right.
Most members of minority groups do not feel that illegal immigration is caused by limits on legal immigration as many ethnic advocacy groups argue; instead, members feel it’s due to a lack of enforcement.
•African-Americans: 16 percent said not enough legal immigration; 70 percent said inadequate enforcement.
When asked to choose between enforcement that would cause illegal immigrants in the country to go home or offering them a pathway to citizenship with conditions, most members of minority groups choose enforcement.
•African-Americans: 50 percent support enforcement; 30 percent support conditional legalization."
Granted, they didn't ask specifically about a wall.
Of course, you'll respond that they vote for Democrats, who are against a wall. That's true, there's a large disconnect between the voting habits of blacks, and their policy preferences. The Democratic party will be in deep trouble if blacks ever take an objective look at which party actually agrees with them on most things.
Of course, you'll respond that they vote for Democrats, who are against a wall. That's true, there's a large disconnect between the voting habits of blacks, and their policy preferences. The Democratic party will be in deep trouble if blacks ever take an objective look at which party actually agrees with them on most things.
ReplyDelete# posted by Blogger Brett : 2:43 PM
Yes, I'll respond that they consistently vote for people that are against building a wall. And, no, the Democratic party is not ever going to be in trouble on this issue with minorities, because the chance that minorities are going to throw their support to a bunch of racist assholes is pretty close to ZERO.
There are ways to help people that are poor that don't involve building a wall. Hispanics and African Americans seem to understand this. Lots of poor whites don't. The GOP has been playing them. Well, a better con artist has just arrived.
ReplyDeleteOf course there are ways to help the poor that don't involve a wall. The problem for the poor is that the Democratic party prefers ways of "helping" the poor, that leaves them poor, and maintains/expands their numbers. The last thing the Democratic party wants, is to help the poor into not being poor anymore.
ReplyDeleteThey might start voting Republican...
The problem for the poor is that the Democratic party prefers ways of "helping" the poor, that leaves them poor, and maintains/expands their numbers. The last thing the Democratic party wants, is to help the poor into not being poor anymore.
ReplyDeleteThey might start voting Republican...
# posted by Blogger Brett : 3:07 PM
You are a delusional nutcase. And unless you get a grip on reality, this game does not end well for you.
The GOP convention machinations have begun.
ReplyDeleteReportedly, the Trump people have alienated the state parties by either ignoring or threatening them, and have made no effort to ensure that the delegates pledged to Trump actually support Trump.
Unnamed "other parties" (assume at least Team Cruz) are busy working the state parties to get their supporters pledged as Trump delegates.
http://theweek.com/articles/613016/donald-trump-delegate-problem-not-think
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteBrett might have saw my reply; if not, well, it's well trod ground, including my disagreements. So, deleted the long reply. Let me just add that reading Jack Balkin's piece, my understanding was off by his lights -- a candidate has to have a majority of delegates, not a plurality, of eight states/regions like Puerto Rico to be a possible nominee at the convention. Cruz only meets that in four states though decent odds he will meet it by the time of the convention.
ReplyDeleteJoe:
ReplyDeleteGOP sources have been telling Fox News that the so called Romney Rule is not mandatory and will be reconsidered by the RNC rules committee.
No surprise there.
That was established upfront and think it will be a moot point anyway.
ReplyDeleteGood topic
ReplyDeleteto be best continue
تحميل العاب