politics and politicians
See other politics and politicians Articles
Title: GOP’s new idea to stop Trump: Make candidates pledge to support the nominee in order to qualify for the ballot
Source:
Hot Air
URL Source: http://hotair.com/archives/2015/08/ ... der-to-qualify-for-the-ballot/
Published: Aug 25, 2015
Author: Allahpundit
Post Date: 2015-08-25 19:10:49 by cranky
Keywords: None
Views: 2445
Comments: 14
Dumb. You think Trump gives a crap about a pledge? He’d take the pledge, renounce it later, then laugh at what losers these Republican leaders are for ever believing that he’d keep his promise. And his fans would cheer him on. “He outwitted the RINOs by making them think he’s a man of his word!” The Virginia and North Carolina parties are in discussions about implementing a new requirement for candidates to qualify for their primary ballots: that they pledge to support the Republican presidential nominee — and not run as a third-party candidate — in the general election… Any moves to tie Trump’s hands, though, could infuriate the mercurial billionaire, who has warned that he could bolt the party if GOP leaders treat him unfairly. On Tuesday morning, Roger Stone, a longtime former Trump strategist, wrote on Twitter that the state party effort would backfire. “The kind of thing that could make @realDonaldTrump bolt the GOP and run 3rd party or Indy,” he said… “Ballot access usually is regarded as party function,” said Tom Josefiak, a former RNC chief counsel. “It definitely would be left up to the state party to decide how it’s going to operate.” The South Carolina GOP requires a loyalty pledge to make the ballot. Trump has until September 30th to decide. I understand why GOPers are jittery about Trump going third-party but that seems less likely to happen every day. In fact, if you’re a Trump-hater who’s groaning over his polling, there’s your silver lining — the better he does now, the more likely he is to commit himself to the Republican race and try to win the party’s nomination. And his odds of doing that are still much, much lower than the odds are that he’d successfully wreck the GOP’s chances in the general election as an indie. If your endgame here is Republican victory next fall, you’re better off trying to stop Trump in the primaries than having him as a loose cannon firing at the party from the outside. Building a formidable independent campaign that qualifies for the ballot in all 50 states will take lots of money, organization, and time. Trump has the first of those three but the second is questionable, and the longer he spends atop the GOP field, the less he’ll have of the third this winter to try to put together an indie bid if his lead among Republicans starts to collapse. Besides, as Ken Cuccinelli noted to Politico, there are “sore loser laws” in some states that block candidates from running in the general election as an independent if they compete in a party primary and lose. Other states require candidates to register for the primary and general elections on the same day, effectively blocking a third-party switch later. There may be ways around those laws depending upon how much you want to spend on lawyers and how lucky you feel in court, but the safe play would be for Trump to decide whether to stick it out in the GOP race or abandon the party before the voting has even started. If his polling has collapsed before Iowa, he’ll be looking at blowing tens of millions of bucks on a third-party bid where all he can do is play spoiler, and if his polling hasn’t collapsed, he’ll have every reason to remain a Republican and take his chances with GOP voters. What would a ballot pledge do to stop him that those electoral laws don’t? Besides, if Trump wants to wreck the GOP nominee in the general, he doesn’t have to go to any bother involving registering as a candidate, spending money, stumping around the country, etc. He could simply quit the Republican race in due time and then spend next summer doing media hits urging his fans not to vote in the fall. “The best thing you can do now to make America great again,” he could say, “is to send a message to Republicans by staying home this year.” Same basic effect as a third-party candidacy without any of the hassle. Imagine how grateful President Hillary will be. Here’s Glenn Beck being asked last night on CNN whether he’d vote for Trump as the Republican nominee. Hot Air alum Noah Rothman, a sharp Trump critic, makes a sharp point on a related note here: If you disdain Trump so much that you’d force him to take a loyalty oath, shouldn’t you, as a Republican, pledge to vote for him next fall if he’s the party’s nominee? If you want to reserve your right to boycott a Trump/Clinton election, maybe you shouldn’t demand vows of fealty from anyone else.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: cranky, *The Two Parties ARE the Same* (#0)
Beck's not tied to the GOP and neither is Trump. No matter how crazy they are, they're not stupid enough to blindly back the GOP ticket. Giving the GOP and/or the DNC the finger, is VERY patriotic IMO. Trump/Beck third party 2016! Beck will flip-flop if The Donald puts him on the ticket. So you don't think the sore loser laws will be a deterrent? There are three kinds of people in the world: those that can add and those that can't
No, and they shouldn't be since they're illegal. They're both Natural Born US Citizens, and old enough. Republicans and Democrats have become used to voting for Kenyans, Panamanians, Mexicans, etc. but they might to willing to give a legitimate candidate a try. These guest worker presidential candidates aren't working out. Vote 'em up! You are absolutely correct. But Trump an abolute ego maniac will flip-flop as well. POTUS is NOT the chairman of the board as Trump is used to occupying.
They are not just trying to stop Trump. They are attempting to impose rules that will forbid future attempts by the people of this country to attempt to overturn the one party system run as a pompous system of job security for dishonorable assholes.
No, and they shouldn't be since they're illegal. It's an interesting question. The State interest in Presidential elections is different from State elections. An Ohio early filing deadline, applicable to a presidential election, was struck down in 1983 in Anderson, but the opinion stated "the deadline is neither a 'sore loser' provision nor a disaffiliation statute." In several other cases, "sore loser" provisions were upheld. Presidential early filing deadline struck down loc.heinonline.org/loc/Page?handle=hein.usreports/usrep460&id=842#842 Anderson et al v. Celebrezze, Secretary of State of Ohio, 460 U.S. 780, 802-806 (1983) [...] Thus in Williams v. Rhodes we concluded that First Amendment values outweighed the State's interest in protecting the two major political parties. On the other hand, in Storer v. Brown we upheld two California statutory provisions that restricted access by inde- [803] pendent candidates to the general election ballot. Under California law, a person could not run as an independent in November if he had been defeated in a party primary that year or if he had been registered with a political party within one year prior to that year's primary election. We stated that "California apparently believes with the Founding Fathers that splintered parties and unrestrained factionalism may do significant damage to the fabric of government," and that destruction of "the political stability of the system of the State" could have "profound consequences for the entire citizenry." 415 U. S., at 736. Further, we approved the State's goals of discouraging "independent candidacies prompted by short-range political goals, pique, or personal quarrel." Id., at 735. Thus in Storer we recognized the legitimacy of the State's interest in preventing "splintered parties and unrestrained factionalism." But we did not suggest that a political party could invoke the powers of the State to assure monolithic control over its own members and supporters.' Political competition that draws resources away from the major parties cannot, for that reason alone, be condemned as "unrestrained factionalism." Instead, in Storer we examined the two challenged provisions in the context of California's electoral system. By requiring a candidate to remain in the intraparty competition once the disaffiliation deadline had passed, and by giving conclusive effect to the winnowing process performed by party members in the primary election, the challenged provisions were an essential part of "a general state policy aimed at maintaining the integrity of the various routes to the ballot." Moreover, we pointed out that the [804] policy "involves no discrimination against independents." Storer, supra, at 733. Ohio's challenged restriction is substantially different from the California provisions upheld in Storer. As we have noted, the early filing deadline does discriminate against independents. And the deadline is neither a "sore loser" provision nor a disaffiliation statute." Furthermore, it is important to recognize that Storer upheld the State's interest in avoiding political fragmentation in the context of elections wholly within the boundaries of California.' The State's interest in regulating a nationwide Presidential election is not nearly as strong; no State could singlehandedly assure "political stability" in the Presidential context. The Ohio deadline does not serve any state interest in "maintaining the integrity of the various routes to the ballot" for the Presidency, because Ohio's Presidential preference primary does not serve to narrow the field for the general election. A major party candidate who loses the Ohio primary, or who does not even run in Ohio, may nonetheless appear on the November general election ballot as the party's nominee. In addition, the national scope of the competition for delegates at the Presidential nominating conventions assures that "intraparty feuding" will continue until August. [805] More generally, the early filing deadline is not precisely drawn to protect the parties from "intraparty feuding," whatever legitimacy that state goal may have in a Presidential election. If the deadline is designed to keep intraparty competition within the party structure, its coverage is both too broad and too narrow. It is true that in this case § 3513.25.7 was applied to a candidate who had previously competed in party primaries and then sought to run as an independent. But the early deadline applies broadly to independent candidates who have not been affiliated in the recent past with any political party. On the other hand, as long as the decision to run is made before the March deadline, Ohio does not prohibit independent candidacies by persons formerly affiliated with a political party, or currently participating in intraparty competition in other States-regardless of the effect on the political party structure. Moreover, the early deadline for filing as an independent may actually impair the State's interest in preserving party harmony. As Professor Bickel perceptively observed: The same analysis, of course, is applicable to a "dissident group" that coalesces around an independent candidate rather than attempting to form a new political party. We conclude that Ohio's March filing deadline for independent candidates for the office of President of the United [806] States cannot be justified by the State's asserted interest in protecting political stability. IV We began our inquiry by noting that our primary concern is not the interest of candidate Anderson, but rather, the interests of the voters who chose to associate together to express their support for Anderson's candidacy and the views he espoused. Under any realistic appraisal, the "extent and nature" of the burdens Ohio has placed on the voters' freedom of choice and freedom of association, in an election of nationwide importance, unquestionably outweigh the State's minimal interest in imposing a March deadline. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is Reversed. Sore Loser Laws Upheld loc.heinonline.org/loc/Page?handle=hein.usreports/usrep415&id=794#794 Storer v. Brown, 415 U.S. 724, 736 (1974) We conclude that § 6830 (d) (Supp. 1974) is not unconstitutional, and Storer and Frommhagen were properly barred from the ballot as a result of its application.7 Cf. Lippitt v. Cipollone, 404 U. S. 1032 (1972). http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/677/397/231627/ Backus v. Spears, 677 F2d 397 (4th Cir 1982) http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp/924/71/1471847/ US Taxpayers Party v. Garza, 924 F. Supp. 71, 74-75 (W.D. Tex. 1996) In Storer v. Brown, 415 U.S. 724, 94 S.Ct. 1274, 39 L.Ed.2d 714 (1974), the Supreme Court upheld a California disaffiliation statute that denied ballot access to an independent candidate if that candidate had been affiliated with any political party within one year prior to the immediate preceding primary election. The Supreme Court found that the restriction protected the compelling state interest of furthering the stability of the political system by guarding against splintered parties and unrestrained factionalism. The Court stated: Storer, 415 U.S. at 735, 94 S.Ct. at 1281. The State may impose restrictions which settle intraparty competition before the general election. American Party of Texas v. White, 415 U.S. 767, 781, 94 S.Ct. 1296, 1306, 39 L.Ed.2d 744 (1974). In striking down an Ohio filing deadline in Anderson, the Supreme Court noted that the restriction was neither a "sore loser" nor a disaffiliation statute, indicating that those sorts of ballot access restrictions were constitutional. Anderson, 460 U.S. at 804, 103 S.Ct. at 1578. Courts have routinely upheld provisions similar to the Texas statute at issue. See, e.g., Burdick v. Takushi, 504 U.S. 428, 112 S.Ct. 2059, 119 L.Ed.2d 245 (1992); Swamp v. Kennedy, 950 F.2d 383 (7th Cir. 1991); Backus v. Spears, 677 F.2d 397 (4th Cir. 1982). The Court finds that the Defendants' stated reasons for the "sore loser" statute are *75 valid, legitimate justifications for the restriction. There is no question that the present situation presents an example of intraparty feuding. Pat Buchanan is now, and at all relevant times has been, a Republican. It is well known that he would like to be in the place of the likely Republican nominee for President, Bob Dole, and that he has sought, in a spirited contest, the Republican Party's Presidential nomination in 1996. The "sore loser" statute is designed to address this very type of intra-party conflict. Although the State's interest in protecting political stability is not as strong when a national election is at issue, the Defendants' justifications for the restriction are valid. The State's interest in preventing factionalism, intra-party feuding, and voter confusion outweighs the minimal burden the statute places on the Plaintiffs' rights. The Court finds that the Texas "sore loser" statute is a reasonable, nondiscriminatory restriction that protects the integrity and reliability of the electoral process itself and does not overly burden Plaintiffs' fundamental rights as voters.
That's been my impression. There are three kinds of people in the world: those that can add and those that can't
If the Republicans want the Democrats to win the White House, they will play this chicken shit. If they want to win, they will back Trump. Period.
If they want to win, they will back Trump. " You are correct. I suspect they will play this. The only alternative Trump will have will be to get onto a third party ballot. I just do not know which one is on the most state ballots. Libertarian or Constitution Party? I suspect those two have the most ballot access. Si vis pacem, para bellum
It won't make any difference. Trump cannot win as an Independent of any stripe. Nobody can. The laws and structure of the system has been too rigged by the two parties to permit any third-party candidate from ever winning. The Republican Party is, and since right after the end of the Civil War has been, a party controlled at its very heart by powerful crony capitalist interests. During the post-Civil War period, America was a one-party state for all intents and purposes (the Democrats were the Party of the Confederacy, and were completely out of power until the 1890s. Only one Democrat, Grover Cleveland, sat in the White House from 1860 until Woodrow Wilson's election in 1912. Republicans dominated everything, and the crony capitalist railroad barons and steel barons and mining interests dominated the Republican Party. The only three Republican Presidents in American history who were NOT crony capitalist agents were Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt and Ike - TR became President through an assassination, and Ike came around fast. The Republican Party, in an out of power, has ALWAYS primarily been the political party that represents the interests of the super-rich who control the industries that stockjob from government contracts and favors. They need other voters, of course, so they retail the issues du jour, but if the crony capitalist country club class don't want some social issue or other to really advance, it does not, ever. The Republicans claim to a duped Republican middle class electorate that "Democrats blocked them", and "just one more election", while they always ram through the advantageous tax structures and government contracts that favor their controllers. Always. Every time. Without an exception. For one hundred and forty seven years and counting. It is far more important to the crony capitalists to retain command and control of their party than to win any given election. After all, the Republicans control the Supreme Court and two houses of Congress. So what, really, if a Democrat wins? Sure, the social issues and symbolic stuff by which the crony capitalist country club manipulates the rubes in the Republican rank and file drift further and further left under Democrats, but all that does is further infuriate the drooling rubes. It's what Reagan's Republican strategist Lee Atwater called "boob-bait for Bubbas". If the country club wanted abortion outlawed, the Supreme Court would have struck it down thirty years ago. If they wanted the border closed, it would be closed tomorrow. Control of the Republican party is central to crony capitalist control of the contracting and political horsetrading on Capitol Hill. Trump is a threat, even though he is a plutocrat, because he is a populist who seems to actually using his wealth to gain independent maneuvering room. And that thought - Republican politicians independent of country club control, is terrifying to the cronies. Look how much damage Teddy Roosevelt did to them in a few short years. They will manipulate the rules to prevent it. And they'll probably succeed. If Trump manages to capture the party's nomination anyway, if he actually goes after the power structure and wins, he might really change things. This is why Trump will pick Rubio. Rubio is a creature of the crony capitalists. As Trump's veep, they will have their man in the inner council, and the heir apparently. That's fine. If Trump doesn't get the nomination, the Democrats will win. Biden/Warren will be President and Veep.
Libertarian. They ran Bob Barr, so Trump might have a shot at getting on the ticket. In the 2012 Presidential election, the Libertarian Party gained ballot access in 48 states plus the District of Columbia, missing only Michigan (write-in only) and Oklahoma Precisely. They will manipulate the rules to prevent it. And they'll probably succeed. If Trump manages to capture the party's nomination anyway, if he actually goes after the power structure and wins, he might really change things. Assuming SC is the first sore-loser state, Trump could publicly refuse to genuflect to the GOP elites rigging the system and let them prohibit the candidate of the people from the primary. If the GOP elite/establishment did it in enough states to decide the nomination in favor of a GOPe candidate, the party might implode. If they did it in a few states, but Trump won enough states to win the nomination, the GOP elites would be eunuchs to be run out of the party headquarters. They might prevent Trump from winning a few states but give him so many protest votes in others that the plan would backfire. It has never happened with someone like Trump taking on the party elites, so it is hard to predict. A lot of conservatives are rejecting the GOPe conversion of the GOP into Dem lite. How much heat would the GOPe take for denying Trump a place on the ballot unless he genuflects to them, kisses their ring, and gives them a loyalty oath?
They have to qualify in 2016 all over again. Here is their update from March. http://www.lp.org/files/20150328_LNC_Meeting_Ballot_Access_Report.pdf Dear Colleagues: If we lived in a nation with just election laws, we wouldn’t have to pursue ballot access. Unfortunately, that is not the case. The following memo addresses petitioning opportunities for the LNC in 2015 and 2016. I want to thank Richard Winger and Bob Johnston, LP of Maryland Chair and an Independent Contractor to the LNC, for their assistance in updating this report. We currently have ballot access for our 2016 Presidential ticket in the following 30 states: AK, AZ, CA, CO, DE, FL, GA, HI, ID, IN, KS, LA, MD, MI, MS, MO, MT, NE, NV, NM, NC, ND, OR, SC, TX, UT, VT, WV, WI & WY. There is one ongoing petition drive: AR. This drive will likely have started by the time of this LNC meeting. 10,000 valid sigs gathered within a 90 days window are necessary. The EC approved an LNC expenditure of $26,000 for this drive, with the rest of the money and volunteer sigs coming from the LPAR. I will now address the other 19 states and DC: AL: The LP can start a party petition anytime (35,413 valid sigs), but I presume that we will do an Independent petition for 5,000 valid sigs in 2016 after the Presidential nomination. I budget $15,000. CT: 7,500 valid sigs in 2016 for President. The LPCT is working with the ACLU to possibly litigate the out-of-state petitioner ban in CT. This drive will likely need some subsidization from the LNC. I budget $25,000. DC: I estimate a 4,600 valid sig petition drive for President in 2016. I budget $15,000 from the LNC. IL: 25,000 valid sig petition drive for President & US Senate in 2016. I will budget $66,500, which was the budgeted amount for 2014. IA: 1,500 valid sig petition drive for President. This required subsidization in 2012 from the LNC. Hopefully not in 2016. KY: 5,000 valid sig petition drive for President can start the day after Election Day 2015. I budget $7,500 in 2015 and $7,500 in 2016. ME: The LPME is working with Scott Kohlhaas in a voter registration drive. The LPME needs 5,000 registered voters to become an officially recognized political party in Maine, which would give the LPME ballot access. This registration drive is about to start. It will have to conclude by December 2015. Scott Kohlhaas anticipates this registration drive will succeed. I am not planning on any LNC subsidization at this time. MA: We will need to do a 10,000 valid sig petition drive for President after Memorial Day 2016, unless we receive permission from the Secretary of State to list only our Presidential electors. If we got that permission, the petition drive could start in February 2016. Deadline: August 1, 2016. Please note that if we had party status in MA, we would not have to petition at all to get our Presidential ticket on the ballot there. MN: A 2,000 valid sig petition drive for President after the Memorial Day 2016 weekend convention. I will plan on this being done by the LPMN. NH: 1,500 valid sigs in each of two congressional districts (3,000 valid sigs total). I have not seen anything out of the LPNH recently that would indicate that it could handle this petition drive on its own. I budget $15,000 in 2016. NJ: 800 valid sigs after Memorial Day 2016. Although the LNC needed to subsidize in 2012, I would hope they could do this on their own in 2016. NY: We will need 15,000 valid sigs for our Presidential ticket in 2016. I budget $30,000 from the LNC. OH: The LPOH is still in court regarding Ohio’s ballot access laws. We should see how this litigation plays out before considering what to do with Ohio for 2016. OK: A party petition would be 41,242 valid sigs. A presidential petition would be 40,047 valid sigs. The cost to do an LPOK petition drive would likely be about $125,000. NOTE: This dollar amount is not included in the 2015 & 2016 summaries below. PA: We are looking at probably about a 25,000 valid sig petition drive in PA starting in February 2016. We are probably looking at an expenditure of $70,000. RI: A 1,000 valid sig petition drive. I don’t think the LPRI can do this themselves. We are probably looking at an LNC expenditure of $2,500. SD: The LP lost its party status in SD in November, because the LPSD did not run someone for Governor this year. However, the LPSD has a new Chairman, Emmett Reistroffer, who seems to have a great desire to move the LPSD forward. A party petition for 6,936 valid sigs would get us two elections (2016 & 2018), with a possibility of retaining ballot status if we get 2.5% for Governor in 2018. I budget $20,000 of LNC funds in 2015. TN: 275 valid sig petition drive for President in 2016. The LPTN should handle this itself. The LPTN needs to work to get this done well ahead of the deadline in 2016, not let it go to a last day fire drill, as in 2012. VA: 5,000 valid sig petition drive for President in 2016. The LPVA should handle this itself. WA: 1,000 valid sig petition drive for President in 2016. The LPWA should handle this itself. [snip]
People don't seem to realize these basic facts about indy candidates and third parties. Much of the entire organizational muscle of the Libertarian Party (and other third parties) is maintaining ballot access on a minefield of differing ballot requirements in various states.
"We (government) need to do a lot less, a lot sooner" ~Ron Paul
#2. To: hondo68 (#1)
Trump/Beck third party 2016!
#3. To: cranky, Trump Beck 2016 (#2)
So you don't think the sore loser laws will be a deterrent?
"We (government) need to do a lot less, a lot sooner" ~Ron Paul
#4. To: hondo68 (#1)
Trump/Beck third party 2016! Beck will flip-flop if The Donald puts him on the ticket.
#5. To: cranky (#0)
GOP’s new idea to stop Trump: Make candidates pledge to support the nominee in order to qualify for the ballot
#6. To: hondo68, cranky (#3)
So you don't think the sore loser laws will be a deterrent?
[802]
"The characteristic American third party, then, consists of a group of people who have tried to exert influence within one of the major parties, have failed, and later decide to work on the outside. States in which there is an early qualifying date tend to force such groups to create minor parties without first attempting to influence the course taken by a major one. For a dissident group is put to the choice of foregoing major-party primary and other prenomination activity by organizing separately early on in an election year, or losing all opportunity for action as a third party later." Bickel, supra n. 11, at 87-88.
"For even when pursuing a legitimate interest, a State may not choose means that unnecessarily restrict constitutionally protected liberty. Dunn v. Blumstein, 405 U. S., at 343. 'Precision of regulation must be the touchstone in an area so closely touching our most precious freedoms.' NAACP v. Button, 371 U. S. [415], 438 [(1963)]. If the State has open to it a less drastic way of satisfying its legitimate interests, it may not choose a legislative scheme that broadly stifles the exercise of fundamental personal liberties." Kusper v. Pontikes, 414 U. S. 51, 58-59 (1973).
A State need not take the course California has, but California apparently believes with the Founding Fathers that splintered parties and unrestrained factionalism may do significant damage to the fabric of government. See The Federalist, No. 10 (Madison). It appears obvious to us that the one-year disaffiliation provision furthers the State's interest in the stability of its political system. We also consider that interest as not only permissible, but compelling and as outweighing the interest the candidate and his supporters may have in making a late rather than an early decision to seek independent ballot status. Nor do we have reason for concluding that the device California chose, § 6830-(d) (Supp. 1974), was not an essential part of its overall mechanism to achieve its acceptable goals. As we indicated in Rosario, the Constitution does rot require the State to choose ineffectual means to achieve its aims. To conclude otherwise might sacrifice the political stability of the system of the State, with profound consequences for the entire citizenry, merely in the interest of particular candidates and their supporters having instantaneous access to the ballot.
Reaching the merits, we conclude that Backus' constitutional claim is frivolous. Under Storer v. Brown, 415 U.S. 724, 94 S. Ct. 1274, 39 L. Ed. 2d 714 (1974), South Carolina certainly has the power, as a permissible adjunct to promoting orderly primary elections, to forbid petition candidacies by persons who have been defeated in party primaries.
Defendants argue that Section 162.015(a) (2) ensures an orderly electoral process and protects the integrity of the system. They assert that the election process is divided between the primary and the general election, with the primaries screening out candidates within a party and the general election allowing the party candidates, independent candidates, and write-in candidates to face each other on the ballot. The Texas Election Code envisions the November general election as the proper forum for both major struggles and focused policy disputes between the political parties. The November general election is not an arena for continuing intraparty feuds, nor is it a proper arena for a failed party candidate to run yet again in the same election cycle as a candidate of another separate and distinct political party. The "sore loser" statute prohibits, and thus avoids, divisive and internecine intraparty fights after a political party had decided its nominee. Defendants argue that this section and the Texas Election Code as a whole seek to minimize unrestrained political factionalism and bickering that can only serve to confuse the electorate.
the general election ballot is reserved for major struggles; it is not a forum for continuing intraparty feuds. The provision against defeated primary candidates running as independents effectuates this aim, the visible result being to prevent the losers from continuing the struggle and to limit the names on the ballot.
#7. To: nolu chan (#6)
In several other cases, "sore loser" provisions were upheld.
#8. To: nolu chan (#6)
#9. To: Vicomte13 (#8)
" If the Republicans want the Democrats to win the White House, they will play this chicken shit.
#10. To: Stoner (#9)
The only alternative Trump will have will be to get onto a third party ballot. I just do not know which one is on the most state ballots. Libertarian or Constitution Party? I suspect those two have the most ballot access.
#11. To: Stoner (#9)
do not know which one is on the most state ballots. Libertarian or Constitution Party?
The Constitution Party had ballot access in 26 States in '12, and write-in access in 16 more.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lib...d_States%29#Ballot_access "We (government) need to do a lot less, a lot sooner" ~Ron Paul
#12. To: Vicomte13, Stoner (#10)
It is far more important to the crony capitalists to retain command and control of their party than to win any given election.
Trump is a threat, even though he is a plutocrat, because he is a populist who seems to actually using his wealth to gain independent maneuvering room. And that thought - Republican politicians independent of country club control, is terrifying to the cronies. Look how much damage Teddy Roosevelt did to them in a few short years.
#13. To: hondo68, Stoner (#11)
In the 2012 Presidential election, the Libertarian Party gained ballot access in 48 states plus the District of Columbia, missing only Michigan (write-in only) and Oklahoma
LIBERTARIAN PARTY BALLOT ACCESS ACTION REPORT
Libertarian National Committee meeting
Phoenix, Arizona
March 28-29, 2015
#14. To: nolu chan (#13)
They have to qualify in 2016 all over again. Here is their update from March.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]