Pubs work on plans to outright steal next election.

[Vrede too]

I consider a legit candidate to be one who has a reasonable, though not necessarily probable, path to winning and the resources to campaign. Does my definition weed out a lot of otherwise potentially good candidates? Sure, but like or not (an I'm a not) we live in a two-party system further encumbered by the electoral college. We don't have a parliamentary system where odd parties/candidate can get a seat and maybe have enough to have to create a coalition. Ours is winners drive, losers sit in the back of the bus. Having people "running" with no chance of winning just muddles the water and takes votes or support away from the real contender. JMNVHO.

So, you think that the RNC should cancel all challengers to ex-PINO?

[O Really]

So, you think that the RNC should cancel all challengers to ex-PINO?

I can't imagine caring what the RNC does, but if the leading Repug candidate wasn't an irrational convicted fraudster with criminal indictments in four courts, the principle would apply. DeSantis et. al. are just standing around pretending to be candidates until Trump crashes and burns.

I might remind you, though, in the unlikely event you forgot, it was "the voters" and not the party who decided on Trump in the first place.

[Vrede too]

... I might remind you, though, in the unlikely event you forgot, it was "the voters" and not the party who decided on Trump in the first place.

I'm not saying that voters are wise, just that a choice is their right.

[O Really]

... I might remind you, though, in the unlikely event you forgot, it was "the voters" and not the party who decided on Trump in the first place.

I'm not saying that voters are wise, just that a choice is their right.

Did I mention that they also exercised that right to present us with Boebert and Santos, among others?

[Vrede too]

... I might remind you, though, in the unlikely event you forgot, it was "the voters" and not the party who decided on Trump in the first place.

I'm not saying that voters are wise, just that a choice is their right.

Did I mention that they also exercised that right to present us with Boebert and Santos, among others?

And Hillary . . . oh wait, that was the DNC choosing, too.

Fwiw, Fake Santos was not a terrible choice. Ineffective and oblivious Dems kinda own that one.

[billy.pilgrim]

y’all left out the north carolina man who beats up trees.

[Vrede too]

y’all left out the north carolina FLORIDA ( ) man who beats up trees.

MadCaw doesn't quite fit the narrative since RepuQ primary voters were wise enough to dump him after a single term. Meadows and now Edwards, otoh . . .

[O Really]

There have always been way too many people who thought that politician was a job "anybody" could do. People who do a thorough screening/references, etc. before they hire a painter would vote for that same painter to represent them in congress. You'd think that people like MadCaw, et. al. as well as Trump would disabuse them of that idea and they might think "why don't we elect somebody with at least a modicum of relevant background?" But noooo! They vote for people BECAUSE they don't know anything. They'll vote for people who don't even bother to "promise" anything other than to be disruptive. They'll vote for people against their own personal interest as long as the candidate agrees with them on one issue.

Not that there's anything I can do about it, but I'm sick and tired of it. There are over 250 million adults in the US. Surely there are better candidates available somewhere.

[Vrede too]

There have always been way too many people who thought that politician was a job "anybody" could do. People who do a thorough screening/references, etc. before they hire a painter would vote for that same painter to represent them in congress. You'd think that people like MadCaw, et. al. as well as Trump would disabuse them of that idea and they might think "why don't we elect somebody with at least a modicum of relevant background?" But noooo! They vote for people BECAUSE they don't know anything. They'll vote for people who don't even bother to "promise" anything other than to be disruptive. They'll vote for people against their own personal interest as long as the candidate agrees with them on one issue.

Not that there's anything I can do about it, but I'm sick and tired of it. There are over 250 million adults in the US. Surely there are better candidates available somewhere.

Won't fix everything, but one thing that can help is an end to partisan gerrymandering. This may be happening in WI:

Wisconsin Supreme Court's ruling could mean a huge change for the purple state

Pols will have to be more qualified, competent, moderate and responsible when running in competitive districts.


Otoh,

Democrats fear electoral bloodbath in North Carolina

You're welcome, America RepuQs despise fairness, honor and democracy. this is how fascism wins

[Vrede too]

Rare good news:

Montana Supreme court rules voter restriction laws passed in ’21 unconstitutional
Laws would have restricted Election Day voting, college and university ID, ballot collection

... The four laws, which ranged from 18-year-olds registering before Election Day to using university-issued identification, were supported by Republican lawmakers and Republican Gov. Greg Gianforte as ways to enhance the security of the voting process, especially in light of the the false allegations that the 2020 presidential election was stolen.

But in its decision, three years in the making, the Montana Supreme Court’s majority found that the state’s Constitution granted even broader protections for voting than the federal constitution, and said that the state failed to show a compelling interest in restricting residents’ access to the ballot....

In a state with a RepuQ Leg, RepuQ Gov and majority RepuQ congressional delegation that has not voted for a Dem for POTUS since 1992 the whiny RepuQs feel that voting is insecure and needs to be "fixed" In reality, this was all a brazen attempt to suppress enough votes to defeat the one Dem US Senator, Tester, nothing more.

The court agreed unanimously that a law that prohibited issuing ballots to Montana voters who were less than 18 when they received the ballot, but would be voting age by Election Day was unconstitutional....

In a split 5-to-2 decision, with two concurring decisions, the majority of the court, led by Chief Justice Mike McGrath, determined that the other three laws were too much of an impediment to voters of Montana, and the laws disenfranchised residents and were unconstitutional.

... The majority, though, turned to the Legislature and found that it failed to prove the state needed to enact these more restrictive voting laws because it had produced little to no evidence of problems, fraud or even overburdened election staff.

“The Montana Constitution has contained a clear, explicit, unequivocal, and strong protection of the right to vote since before statehood: ‘All elections shall be free and open, and no power, civil or military, shall at any time interfere to prevent the free exercise of the right of suffrage,’” McGrath wrote for the majority, quoting the constitution itself....

Nearly one dozen groups had challenged the laws, and dozens of lawyers were at the nine-day trial in 2022.

“This is an enormous victory for young people in Montana,”said Kiersten Iwai, Forward Montana Foundation’s executive director. “The youth vote is essential to effective participatory democracy—we vote to build a better future and we will not be silenced.”

“This decision is about the power of the people—especially youth and Native Americans—to choose who represents them in government,”said Rylee Sommers-Flanagan, executive director of Upper Seven Law, counsel for some of the plaintiffs.“Today the Court has affirmed that Montanans must be allowed to freely exercise their right to vote, the key to democracy.”

Perhaps a model for other states?

[GoCubsGo]

Because they can.

Republican-passed bill removes role of Democratic governor if Senate vacancy occurs in Kentucky

[Vrede too]

Because they can.

Republican-passed bill removes role of Democratic governor if Senate vacancy occurs in Kentucky

When I saw the headline I thought the Leg was taking the selection for itself. Instead, it mandates rapid special elections. I know that the hope is that the Dems lose out, but I may be okay with the principle. Why should a Gov get to skew the eventual voter choice in the general?

Plus, Dem Beshear was already severely hamstrung:

... Beshear — who won a convincing reelection victory last November over a McConnell protege — had already seen his influence over selecting a senator greatly diminished by GOP lawmakers.

In 2021, the legislature removed the governor's independent power to temporarily fill a Senate seat. That measure limits a governor to choosing from a three-name list provided by party leaders from the same party as the senator who formerly held the seat. Both of Kentucky’s U.S. senators are Republicans. The measure became law after GOP lawmakers overrode Beshear’s veto.

Might as well go straight to a special election.

[Vrede too]

https://www.blueridgedebate.com/viewtop ... 68#p197368

Democrat woman wins AL special election for AL House seat. The best part is the guy she's replacing, a GQP member, resigned his seat after being convicted last year of.........wait for it.......voter fraud.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/democrat-win ... 20043.html

Another one:

Court Finds GOP Party Official And Anti-'Voter Fraud' Activist Voted Illegally 9 Times
Georgia Republican official Brian Pritchard must pay a $5,000 fine.

... Pritchard, a conservative talk show host, denied any wrongdoing when Georgia officials first began exploring the possibility that he had voted illegally.

Coward

... On his talk show and website, Pritchard has propped up former President Donald Trump’s false claims about widespread voter fraud in the 2020 election.

“I do not believe 81 million people voted for this guy,” Pritchard said in reference to President Joe Biden, during a 2022 episode of his show.

Moron

... When reached for comment about the Wednesday’s ruling, Pritchard called it “politically motivated” and “purely a political stunt.”

“I have not been found guilty of anything,” he said in an email. “I will continue my grassroots work every day and will not buckle to false attacks!”...

Liar

I would call this irony, but that assumes that we expect any better from modern RepuQs.

[O Really]

No matter what these guys actually do or are caught at, the resultant charges will always be "politically motivated."

[Vrede too]

No matter what these guys actually do or are caught at, the resultant charges will always be "politically motivated."

Then, their sentences will be racially motivated.
neoplacebo's example, David Cole of the Alabama House of Representatives, got "60 days in prison for electoral fraud."
My 9-time lawbreaking example - "Georgia Republican official Brian Pritchard must pay a $5,000 fine."

Meanwhile, after getting a 5-year sentence and enduring a 6-year ordeal as an obviously unintentional miscreant:
Illegal voting charges dropped against Texas woman

I wonder why so harsh to begin with?



Anyhow, finally.

[billy.pilgrim]

No matter what these guys actually do or are caught at, the resultant charges will always be "politically motivated."

Then, their sentences will be racially motivated.
neoplacebo's example, David Cole of the Alabama House of Representatives, got "60 days in prison for electoral fraud."
My 9-time lawbreaking example - "Georgia Republican official Brian Pritchard must pay a $5,000 fine."

Meanwhile, after getting a 5-year sentence and enduring a 6-year ordeal as an obviously unintentional miscreant:
Illegal voting charges dropped against Texas woman

I wonder why so harsh to begin with?



Anyhow, finally.

I believe it was six republicans from The Villages who were caught voting multiple times for trump. They had to take a class.

[Vrede too]

I believe it was six republicans from The Villages who were caught voting multiple times for trump. They had to take a class.

That's how it goes with White RepuQs.

Trump and Nebraska governor push to deny Biden a crucial electoral vote

Donald Trump and Nebraska Gov. Jim Pillen endorsed legislation that would take Omaha’s potentially decisive electoral vote out of play for Democrats, hours after conservative activist Charlie Kirk’s Tuesday X post suggesting it.

In just 200 words, Kirk urged Republicans to repeal the state’s 1991 law that assigned two electors to the winner of the state, and one for each of its three congressional districts. Republicans easily carried Nebraska in every subsequent election, but in 2008 and 2020, the Omaha-based 2nd District voted Democratic.

I think it's a great system, regardless of who's advantaged in a given year. More states should do it.

... Pillen’s statement drew some immediate murmurs of concern from Democrats, some of whom speculated that Maine’s Democratic government could respond by consolidating their own divided electoral votes, where Trump won the 2nd District in 2020. No other states award their electoral votes this way.

It'll be a shame if Maine's hand is forced this way.

Still: The founder of Turning Point USA jolted a doomed bill to life with a quick post and a receptive Republican audience. The Trump campaign has been perspicacious about election rules all year, winning Nevada’s caucus by default after state Republicans held a caucus with rules that disadvantaged Ron DeSantis. For years, Republicans in other states floated, then abandoned, changes that might help their nominee win electoral votes. A party that’s becoming much more responsive to conservative activists and commentators might act more decisively.

Notable

If this 11th hour effort to change a state’s electoral system succeeds, it would join a number of ongoing efforts by the party to tweak rules before November. In Georgia, the Republican state legislature has passed a bill that would make it easier for voters to challenge registrations that they suspected of being fake; it would also automatically add any third party candidate who qualified for 20 other state ballots to Georgia’s ballot.

Repuqs can't just run on issues because they know they'll LOSE.