• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Early elections predictions

Who will win US presidential elections of 2024 ?

  • Total voters
    82
Trausti said:
If you're running for the highest office in the land, please don't use your sex or race to avoid criticism of your policies (or, in this case, lack thereof).
Click to expand...
$1 trillion infrastructure plan, strengthened ACA, ended high inflation, prevented a recession, brought back millions of lost jobs, reformed the ECA. Kamala accomplished a lot.
 
Kamala didn't do those things, Biden did. However, those are Democratic policies that she will continue to pursue along with new policies of hers that will improve upon those improvements to the USA economy.
 
thaiboxerken said:
Kamala didn't do those things, Biden did. However, those are Democratic policies that she will continue to pursue along with new policies of hers that will improve upon those improvements to the USA economy.
Click to expand...

I don't mean to speak on his behalf but I saw it as tongue-in-cheek in that everything Biden has done right or wrong, Trump has called it the Harris Administration or some variance of that. Can't give her all the blame but none of the credit, amiright?
 
True, if Trump is going to call it Kamala's administration that's been in charge, then Kamala should get the credit to be consistent.
 
Hercules56 said:
If GOP wins House and Senate, they could vote to reject all the swing states Harris won. And make Trump the winner.

:(
Click to expand...
The nightmare scenario is, even if the Democrats flip the House, Johnson refuses to seat enough incoming representatives on Jan 3 due to "election irregularities" that there aren't enough Democrats to get the majority and Republicans re-elect him as Speaker. He then says there aren't enough seated representiatives on Jan 6 to certify the electoral colelge results, so the vote goes to the House delegations.
 
Clear orange victory (let's say at least around 55% to 45%).

Reporting: Dani, fake news, my butt.
 
It will be claimed early as the HUUUGEST landslide of all time, including Reagan's in 1984 when he won all states except Minnesota and DC.
 
Prediction: Trump will declare Victory shortly after the polling stations have closed in the Swing States.
 
PitPat said:
It will be claimed early as the HUUUGEST landslide of all time, including Reagan's in 1984 when he won all states except Minnesota and DC.
Click to expand...
I remember that week. I was avoiding election reporting so I watched a recorded Saturday Night Live from a few days before. The news segment did a report on the (upcoming) Election and pulled down a map, that showed exactly that, to great laughter. I stopped the tape after that segment and immediately saw on the live news (Election night) that same map. But it was real! Not so much laughter except ironic.
 
Donal said:
The nightmare scenario is, even if the Democrats flip the House, Johnson refuses to seat enough incoming representatives on Jan 3 due to "election irregularities" that there aren't enough Democrats to get the majority and Republicans re-elect him as Speaker. He then says there aren't enough seated representiatives on Jan 6 to certify the electoral colelge results, so the vote goes to the House delegations.
Click to expand...
That would be asking for war.

However, just because Johnson refuses to seat a bunch of Democrats doesn't it mean you automatically get a contingent election. You only get a contingent election if nobody wins 270 electoral votes. And you only get such a scenario if half of the house and half of the Senate both votes to reject some electoral slates.

Johnson's rebellious house may vote to reject an electoral slate won by kamala but the Senate ruled by democrats would not. That means the slate would be counted.

The only real problem is if the Senate is taken over by the Republicans and Johnson plays the game that you suggest. But refusing to seat Democrats who won elections because they will end up taking over the house and therefore would be able to prevent a contingent election would be an act of insurrection and treason and preventing the administration of government.
 
Last edited:
Delvo said:
People severely overuse "landslide" now. The reason such a drastic image is used in the metaphor is because the metaphorical meaning is supposed to be only for drastic cases, not just any old ordinary election that isn't almost a tie. 1984 (525-13) was a landslide. 300-238 is not like that.
Click to expand...
Next, you’re gonna tell me tonight’s network news story about something that happened yesterday isn’t actually “breaking news.”
 
Donal said:
The nightmare scenario is, even if the Democrats flip the House, Johnson refuses to seat enough incoming representatives on Jan 3 due to "election irregularities" that there aren't enough Democrats to get the majority and Republicans re-elect him as Speaker. He then says there aren't enough seated representiatives on Jan 6 to certify the electoral colelge results, so the vote goes to the House delegations.
Click to expand...
Keeping in mind the fact that "they can't do that!" is maybe a little naive these days ...I'm pretty sure that neither Johnson nor any other Speaker actually has that power. Powell v. McCormack (Wikipedia) determined in 1969 that only Congress as a whole could expel members, and then only after them having been seated and sworn, and only for reasons having to do with Constitutionally specified qualifications:

Powell v. McCormack, 395 U.S. 486 (1969), is a United States Supreme Court case that held that the Qualifications of Members Clause of Article I of the US Constitution is an exclusive list of qualifications of members of the House of Representatives, which may exclude a duly elected member for only those reasons enumerated in that clause.
Click to expand...
Article I, section 5, of the U.S. Constitution states that "Each house shall be the judge of the... qualifications of its own members," but then immediately states that each House has the authority to expel a member "with the Concurrence of two thirds." ... The Court's interpretation was that the subject clause meant that the process that led to the expulsion of a member, duly sworn and enrolled upon the body's rolls, was the only method for a House to give effect to its power to determine the qualifications of its members.

The Court reasoned that the authority of Congress in this matter was post facto: That is, it attached only after a member-elect had been elected under the laws of the state in which the congressional district was located, and after said member-elect took the oath of office.
Click to expand...
The Court determined in this case that no Congress could exclude a future member, a candidate member, from being sworn in and taking a seat in the House. The Court found that if the Congress went beyond a determination that a candidate member had satisfied the Constitution's qualifications for membership and had been duly chosen by and through the laws of their state, it could not, under the Constitution, go further in examining and possibly reject a candidate member before administering the oath of office and seating him.
Click to expand...
I guess Congress could, as a body, look into whether the member "had been duly chosen by and through the laws of their state,", but even that only after he's been sworn in, and not solely in the judgment of the Speaker. If even Congress as a whole lacks the power to deny an elected member his seat for "election irregularities," I doubt Johnson can, by fiat, unilaterally do so. As I said, it's not beyond the pale for the GOP to try, but...we all know what sticklers for Constitutional originalism conservatives like Johnson are, right? Surely they would stick to principle and forbear that particular tactic. :cautious:

(And, of course, the usual disclaimer that IANAL, and may be reading all that all wrong)
 
Last edited:
My opinion is that there is no legitimate way for T****y to win this. Unfortunately, the US election systems are only (in the whole) infinitessimally better than Ruzzia's so there are plenty of illegitimate ways for him to win that will be waved through.
 
Hercules56 said:
That would be asking for war.

However, just because Johnson refuses to seat a bunch of Democrats doesn't it mean you automatically get a contingent election. You only get a contingent election if nobody wins 270 electoral votes. And you only get such a scenario if half of the house and half of the Senate both votes to reject some electoral slates.

Johnson's rebellious house may vote to reject an electoral slate won by kamala but the Senate ruled by democrats would not. That means the slate would be counted.

The only real problem is if the Senate is taken over by the Republicans and Johnson plays the game that you suggest. But refusing to seat Democrats who won elections because they will end up taking over the house and therefore would be able to prevent a contingent election would be an act of insurrection and treason and preventing the administration of government.
Click to expand...

...and...? what would the consequences be? Nancy Pelosi wagging her finger? Susan Collins furrowing her brow and being "concerned" while at the same time going along with it? News anchors getting the vapors over the death of democracry?
 
turingtest said:
Keeping in mind the fact that "they can't do that!" is maybe a little naive these days ...I'm pretty sure that neither Johnson nor any other Speaker actually has that power. Powell v. McCormack (Wikipedia) determined in 1969 that only Congress as a whole could expel members, and then only after them having been seated and sworn, and only for reasons having to do with Constitutionally specified qualifications:




I guess Congress could, as a body, look into whether the member "had been duly chosen by and through the laws of their state,", but even that only after he's been sworn in, and not solely in the judgment of the Speaker. If even Congress as a whole lacks the power to deny an elected member his seat for "election irregularities," I doubt Johnson can, by fiat, unilaterally do so. As I said, it's not beyond the pale for the GOP to try, but...we all know what sticklers for Constitutional originalism conservatives like Johnson are, right? Surely they would stick to principle and forbear that particular tactic. :cautious:

(And, of course, the usual disclaimer that IANAL, and may be reading all that all wrong)
Click to expand...

I'm not talking about expelling anyone. I'm talking abotu refusing to sit them. For about 3 days.
 
Last night Nate Silver (formerly of 538 and now with the Silver Bulletin) released the results of 80,000 simulations of election outcomes. Harris won 40,012 of them.

https://www.natesilver.net/p/nate-silver-2024-president-election-polls-model

Back in 2016 the 538 blog ran simulations for Trump/Clinton, in which Trump won 28.6% and Clinton won 71.4% of the outcomes, this based on 20,000 simulations (https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/). For that Silver/538 were excoriated by many left-leaning news outlets and some still have not forgiven him for showing that Trump essentially had a 1 in 3 chance of winning. And many still cite that 2016 poll as an example of a really inaccurate poll, even though it got closer than any of the other non-partisan polls.

Based on all that, I have no idea who will win this round.
 
Donal said:
I'm not talking about expelling anyone. I'm talking abotu refusing to sit them. For about 3 days.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I got that. Read that last paragraph in my Wikipedia quote again, especially the first sentence ("The Court determined in this case that no Congress could exclude a future member, a candidate member, from being sworn in and taking a seat in the House"). Expulsion after seating/swearing in is the only remedy Congress as a whole has, and then only for specified reasons that do not include alleging election irregularities; and I doubt that Johnson or any Speaker on his own has any more power than that. In fact, the whole case was about a Speaker in 1967 trying to do just what you suggested. It's true that the Speaker is the one who presides over the swearing-in ceremony, but that's done for the body as a whole on Jan 3, not for each member on an individual basis (unless some individuals are delayed past Jan 3 from getting there); so Johnson doesn't even really have the opportunity to refuse the ones he might like to.

It's a creative scenario, but I just don't see it as a likely one. Much as Johnson horrifies me, based on what I've read about him, I can't see even him unilaterally trying to exclude members from the ceremony for no other reason than that they're Democrats, even citing "election irregularities" as an excuse. He can certainly ask, as McCormack did in 1967; but he's not gonna go to the Seargent-At-Arms (or whoever) with a list and say "this guy, this guy, this guy- kick 'em out."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom