RFK Jr. pulls more votes from Trump than Biden in three-way race: poll
3 years ago by NegativeNull@lemm.ee to c/politics
Remember when the QAnon nutjobs thought a dead Kennedy was going to rise from the grave to be Trump’s running mate?
Nope. Literally!?
That sure is somethin'.
There are a lot of really stupid people out there.
Yes. "But how could anyone believe that?!" I don't hear anyone ask. Knowing Better has a great video on that:
https://youtu.be/gENRqiaS8xM?si=4SUndSk6IvSs1icD
Also available on Nebula:
If there’s one thing I’ve learned in the last ten years it is that I’ll never trust a political poll.
I think we will have a three way run for President between Biden ( D ), Haley ( R ), Trump ( I ) in November of 2024. Trump will be disqualified in most states preventing him from winning the Republican nomination. He will run independently splitting the right wing votes. Biden goes on to win 45 states.
Nope there is no way this is going to happen. So Trump's eligibility is going to hit the US Supreme Court. It is litigation on the Constitution itself with more or less zero case law around it. This is the kind of thing that every lawyer dreams of putting their name on. It will hit the US Supreme Court and they will take it. So he will be either eligible or ineligible in all 50 states it will not be peace meal. piecemeal
Now that doesn't mean that there won't be a major independent candidate for some other reasons, but not for this reason.
On the third section? Almost all the case law I have seen is on the first section. Feel free to cite your cases.
Not being sarcastic, but also don't follow every Supreme Court case: what do you view as the encouragingly solid decisions? I did see one civil rights-related case that seemed to go positively a few weeks back.
It absolutely does mean that now.
The Supreme Court cannot issue a constitutional amendment, only the States or Congress can do that. It's going to be extremely difficult to claim the 14th Amendment doesn't apply to Trump based on the language and the fact that Confederates were barred from office without being convicted. The Supreme Court would be in breach of power to ignore what the Consitution says.
Oh no, breach of power! Good thing we can sue them right? ...right?
Yeah..I'll see you in cour...wait a minute.
The supreme court already rewrote the college loan law. I think they know they can't be held accountable and have little respect for the laws or constution beyond those that align with their ideology
A law is different than a Consitutional Amendment. They can't rewrite it and it's obvious what the Amendment was put in place for.
It would be pretty hypocritical given that a third of SCOTUS believes in the independent state legislature theory which pretty much lets states legislatures do whatever they want with regards to federal elections. But, that's probably not going to stop them siding with Trump.
Oh dear, I’m sure they are absolutely terrified of looking hypocritical
And they will say that regardless of the Civil War precedents say, a court needs to determine whether he participated in the insurrection via a conviction.
Piecemeal
Would be awesome, but I don’t see it happening. This man has so much support still— especially in the high levels of state government— it’s disgusting. Republicans are still massively supportive of Trump and he’s nearly a shoe-in for the R nomination.
I think the reasoning above is based on the idea that he will be actually disqualified and not on the ballots as a convicted felon (at least I assume that's the "he's disqualified" angle here).
Although, sadly I think it's unlikely to happen before the election, and even if it did I wouldn't be in the slightest surprised for Republican states to just outright change whatever laws they need to (or just ignore the law) to put him on the state ballots.
Stop spreading misinformation. Being a convicted felon does not prevent someone from running for or being elected president. It's specifically being involved with an insurrection, whether convicted or not, that disqualifies him from the office. Felonies have nothing to do with it.
From the US Constitution:
Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection and Other Rights
Section 3 Disqualification from Holding Office
No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
A hard-core blible thumping Trumper is speaker in congress. Unfortunately for everyone's sanity, he's not going anywhere except hopefully into a max security prison.
Probably a hotel on house arrest.
I know that the end result after all of the appeals is probably going to be a pittance fine and house arrest for a few months.
A guy can dream of an ideal justice system.
Trump will be disqualified in most states preventing him from winning the Republican nomination.
I doubt this really happens. Trump may only be disqualified in a handful of states which he would have lost anyway, and even if that happens I wouldn't put it past Republicans to ignore it and nominate him anyway.
They might even declare the whole thing unlawful interference on the part of the Biden administration, and send their own electors from those states again. Who's gonna stop them? The Supreme Court?
If one state can disqualify him, he is disqualified in all states.
Removing Trump from the ballots will go to Trump’s Supreme Court. That won’t work.
Trump will be the republican nominee unless hell freezes over. That fucker will run from jail if he has to. Becoming president is his only way out of many of his DoJ cases.
The Supreme Court will have a hard time defending Trump in that case. The 14th Amendment Section 3 is solid and gives Congress the ability to allow him on the ballot with a 2/3 vote.
It’s not like this court hasn’t made crazy ass calls before.
I sure hope that is the case. But given how corrupt our system is, who knows.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
“With minority and younger voters seeming intrigued, Kennedy, for now, enjoys the kind of demographic support his charismatic father and uncles generated decades ago,” Quinnipiac University polling analyst Tim Malloy said in a release.
Kennedy, an environmental lawyer and prominent anti-vaccine activist, was running in the Democratic primaries against Biden until last month, when he declared himself an independent after struggling to make inroads against the incumbent.
Former Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio), a strong progressive and Kennedy’s original campaign manager, notably left his position just days after Kennedy announced he was switching affiliation.
Politico reported on Wednesday that Kennedy has been receiving donations from former Trump donors at a much higher rate than from former Biden donors, possibly signaling the risk for Republicans with his candidacy.
Other polls have found that Kennedy may hurt Trump more than Biden in a general election, including a USA Today/Suffolk University poll from last month that found Kennedy costs Trump what would be a narrow lead in a hypothetical race.
The Quinnipiac poll found that adding progressive activist Cornel West, who is also running as an independent, for a four-way race, leaves Biden with a narrower lead than he had in the three-way race.
The original article contains 357 words, the summary contains 200 words. Saved 44%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!
“With minority and younger voters seeming intrigued, Kennedy, for now, enjoys the kind of demographic support his charismatic father and uncles generated decades ago,” Quinnipiac University polling analyst Tim Malloy said in a release.
Tim Malloy just be a distant Kennedy cousin or something, because this take is extremely generous. RFK Jr has the charisma of a plastic bag. The only thing he shares with his dad is his name.
And you would think Junior would want to steer clear of running for President, given what happened to his dad when he ran.
The independent ticket seems to have died along with Bernie's chances of ever having been getting into presidency. It's almost like any whackjob that gets to run Independent, mind as well call it Republican 2.0
After Ralph Nader cost Gore the 2000 election, (along with blatant supreme court fuckery) Democrats have been a little wiser about third party candidates.
See, under First Past the Post, a third party candidate is a liability. When you support a third party, or independent, the most likely outcome is the majority candidate that is ideologically closest to that candidate will lose. The Spoiler Effect.
RFK Jr. is a blatant attempt at Republicans trying to create a spoiler candidate. The problem (for them) is, he's much closer to Trump than Biden on many key issues.
I mean. Antivax bullshit is more than enough to disqualify him immediately for any sane voter. Why would someone spend any additional time learning about his other opinions?
I reject the premise.
It's impossible for them to have all my ideal solutions because that would necessarily include supporting medical science.
Being an outspoken antivaxxer shows a severe lack of critical thinking skills. Vaccines are not what matters most to me - having a representative that accepts reality is.
@lemmy.world
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles. Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to US politics and contain quality and original content. Social Media adjacent hosts like Substack are allowed, but ONLY if they tie back to a company/subsidiary. No personal or friend group blogs and no self-promotion. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and re-hosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing other users of being bots or paid actors.
- No memes, trolling, misinformation, or low-effort posts/comments (including reposts). If you see posts like this that anger you, do not engage. Report, block, and live a happier life than they do. Any slap-fight is subject to comment removals. Fights full of rule violations will result in temporary bans to cool off.
- No manipulating votes via bots or alt accounts; this will result in permanent bans. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in an account ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be permanently banned.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules and use critical thinking when reading, posting, and commenting. Users that repeatedly have comments or posts removed, weaponize reports, or violate the code of conduct, will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users. The reason(s) behind moderator action(s) are publicly available through the Modlog.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
go to feed...
@lemmy.world
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles. Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to US politics and contain quality and original content. Social Media adjacent hosts like Substack are allowed, but ONLY if they tie back to a company/subsidiary. No personal or friend group blogs and no self-promotion. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and re-hosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing other users of being bots or paid actors.
- No memes, trolling, misinformation, or low-effort posts/comments (including reposts). If you see posts like this that anger you, do not engage. Report, block, and live a happier life than they do. Any slap-fight is subject to comment removals. Fights full of rule violations will result in temporary bans to cool off.
- No manipulating votes via bots or alt accounts; this will result in permanent bans. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in an account ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be permanently banned.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules and use critical thinking when reading, posting, and commenting. Users that repeatedly have comments or posts removed, weaponize reports, or violate the code of conduct, will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users. The reason(s) behind moderator action(s) are publicly available through the Modlog.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
go to feed...
save