Presidential predictions for 2024?

[Seattle]

Trump is the symptom and not the disease. The disease is the people who Trump has managed to latch on to. Sure, he likes the strong man aspect but he is just the carnival barker craving attention as he has always been.

The reason that the problem didn't go away when Trump was defeated is that the disease is still here. Trump will be the Republican nominee, he won't be elected, he may not even be allowed to be on the ballot in some states depending on court case outcomes.

The main lesson from the Trump years is the potential fragility of democratic institutions, the way that the Republicans caved in to Trump and the electorate backing him. The good news is that the system is finally working to punish the Jan. 6 crowd but that element is still out there.

All that actually has little to do with Trump. He just ran at the right time to get their vote. Years ago he supported Hillary Clinton as I recall when she ran for the Senate. He doesn't really represent anything other than himself. He may end up in prison (or house arrest) in due time but until the "disease" is cured there will be others to carry on that brand of populism.

 

[Sarkus]

Okay, I've been down the rabbit hole, recently, of the MeidasTouch youtube channel, and their coverage, more than anything else, of the various Trump court battles. The channel seems to be a group of legal bods who follow and give commentary on legal goings on in the US, but Trump seems to be the main source of sustenance at the moment.
Anyhoo, with regard the various challenges Trump is facing with regard his disqualification for Presidency in 2024, it seems that even a highly regarded retired conservative judge, J. Michael Luttig, sees that Trump should be disqualified from the ballot, in line with section 3 of the 14th Amendment. His view seems to be that most lower level judges have thus far been ruling incorrectly, e.g. that while he is guilty of insurrection that this section 3 of the 14th Amendment does not apply to (ex-)Presidents.
Luttig's view is that it does, and that the insurrection act to be considered is not his role in the storming of the Capitol, but rather his efforts to overturn the vote in the courts or via other means. This, Luttig's view goes, amounts to an insurrection not against the US government but against the Constitution of the US, which is what section 3 of the 14th Amendment is about.

"[Groups that filed lawsuits to bar Trump from the ballot] do not yet understand what disqualifies the former president, namely an insurrection or rebellion against the constitution. They have argued the cases as if he is disqualified because he engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the United States. That's why they have, unfortunately, focused their efforts on establishing or not that the former president was responsible for the riot on the Capitol. The riot on the Capitol is incidental to the question of whether he engaged in a rebellion against the constitution."​

He also thinks that it is a self-enacting disqualification, in that it doesn't/shouldn't need a judge, or a court, or congress, or anyone to rule on it once the guilt of insurrection is established. That it should simply be enacted.
And this from a conservative retired judge.

So, it seems that things are slowly turning against Trump even being allowed to be on the ballot in a number of States. If the house of cards start to fall, how long before the Republican party simply tell him that he's not in consideration?
If that happens, will he run as an independent, thereby ensuring the Democratic nominee somewhat of a landslide?

 

[Seattle]

So, it seems that things are slowly turning against Trump even being allowed to be on the ballot in a number of States. If the house of cards start to fall, how long before the Republican party simply tell him that he's not in consideration?
If that happens, will he run as an independent, thereby ensuring the Democratic nominee somewhat of a landslide?

There is no guarantee that would be the outcome (Democratic landslide). Biden isn't particularly popular. He is just more acceptable than Trump. If someone else is the Republican nominee there are more people who might vote Republican just on issues related to taxes and the economy.

I think it makes for a tighter race rather than a landslide.

 

[Zero Point Native]

I predict there will be a large herd of cattle lining up at the poles casting a vote for the candidate they erroneously believe will make any difference whatsoever to the status quo and that somehow their life will be improved, and then they'll go home and turn on the news and watch the results as they pour in and posted on the screen in scoreboard fashion and the T.V. news anchors acting like super bowl sports commentators.

I predict I will have my popcorn ready as I watch and laugh at the circus show that is repeated every four years.

As far as predicting who will win the 2024 presidential election. Well, that's easy. I predict that a cancer cell will win the 2024 election. 100% guaranteed.

 

[Seattle]

I predict there will be a large herd of cattle lining up at the poles casting a vote for the candidate they erroneously believe will make any difference whatsoever to the status quo and that somehow their life will be improved, and then they'll go home and turn on the news and watch the results as they pour in and posted on the screen in scoreboard fashion and the T.V. news anchors acting like super bowl sports commentators.

I predict I will have my popcorn ready as I watch and laugh at the circus show that is repeated every four years.

As far as predicting who will win the 2024 presidential election. Well, that's easy. I predict that a cancer cell will win the 2024 election. 100% guaranteed.

You'll thank me later, it's "polls" and not "poles" and "T.V." isn't an abbreviation for something starting with a "T" and a "V" so "T.V." makes no sense. Of course, you are free to thank me now if you wish.

 

[Sarkus]

There is no guarantee that would be the outcome (Democratic landslide). Biden isn't particularly popular. He is just more acceptable than Trump. If someone else is the Republican nominee there are more people who might vote Republican just on issues related to taxes and the economy.

I think it makes for a tighter race rather than a landslide.

The landslide comment was in reference to Trump running as an independent if not nominated by the Republicans. If he does I see him splitting the Rep's vote wherever he's allowed on the ballot, leading to the Democrats winning easily.
I mean, would a MAGA "devotee" who has been, and continues to be, swayed by Trump's cult of personality vote for the Rep nominee or for Trump?
Of course, if Trump is not the nominee and does not run as an independent then it's business as usual and possibly a close race again.

 

[Zero Point Native]

You'll thank me later, it's "polls" and not "poles" and "T.V." isn't an abbreviation for something starting with a "T" and a "V" so "T.V." makes no sense. Of course, you are free to thank me now if you wish.

Why thank you soooooo much!!! Such a kind person you are. Ya just can’t be too careful with writing in a forum ya know?

 

[ThazzarBaal]

I predict there will be a large herd of cattle lining up at the poles casting a vote for the candidate they erroneously believe will make any difference whatsoever to the status quo and that somehow their life will be improved, and then they'll go home and turn on the news and watch the results as they pour in and posted on the screen in scoreboard fashion and the T.V. news anchors acting like super bowl sports commentators.

I predict I will have my popcorn ready as I watch and laugh at the circus show that is repeated every four years.

As far as predicting who will win the 2024 presidential election. Well, that's easy. I predict that a cancer cell will win the 2024 election. 100% guaranteed.

I'll agree ... At least in terms of anything noticable soon, but ice burgs are also slow moving, so ... Even though the "show" and stage seem moreso relevant than any real change or movement of purpose, the further reaching goals are still in play as we inch forward as a nation.

I'm not voting, but Ill be watching ... Just no pop corn. I'll be having coffee and cigarettes.

 

[Sarkus]

So, news just out, Colorado have become the first state to rule Trump ineligible to become the next President - so he will not be on their ballot - due to the insurrection clause in the Constitution (14th Amendment). The State Supreme Court ruled 4-3 that his name should be removed from the ballot, although it should be noted that the decision has been put on hold pending probable appeal next month (to the US Supreme Court).
Assuming that the decision is upheld (no guarantees, obviously, as SCOTUS is 5-4 Rep-leaning, I believe), does this finally spell the death knell for Trump's Presidency aspirations? I mean, he could still win without Colorado if he was the Rep's nomination, but would they seriously put up a candidate so hamstrung? And will other states follow suit and more disqualifications follow?

 

[geordief]

So, news just out, Colorado have become the first state to rule Trump ineligible to become the next President - so he will not be on their ballot - due to the insurrection clause in the Constitution (14th Amendment). The State Supreme Court ruled 4-3 that his name should be removed from the ballot, although it should be noted that the decision has been put on hold pending probable appeal next month (to the US Supreme Court).
Assuming that the decision is upheld (no guarantees, obviously, as SCOTUS is 5-4 Rep-leaning, I believe), does this finally spell the death knell for Trump's Presidency aspirations? I mean, he could still win without Colorado if he was the Rep's nomination, but would they seriously put up a candidate so hamstrung? And will other states follow suit and more disqualifications follow?

Doubt this will carry through but if he was disqualified from Colorado would that lose him any electoral votes?
I seem to recall that even the loser in any State gets a proportion of the electoral votes.

So ,if the SCOTUS does not overturn this ruling then it may well hamstring him(more States could indeed follow- maybe even Biden would feel at liberty to enjoy his retirement and there could be a turning of the page)

At last a conspiracy theory that could sink Trump rather than float him

 

[Sarkus]

Doubt this will carry through but if he was disqualified from Colorado would that lose him any electoral votes?
I seem to recall that even the loser in any State gets a proportion of the electoral votes.

In the actual Presidential election, I'm fairly sure that ALL the Colorado electoral votes would go to whichever candidate won the popular vote in that state, even if they won by just 1 vote (hence Trump trying to find a few voters in certain states, and the importance of the Florida vote between Bush and Gore). It's certainly not proportional representation.
Colorado is 9 electoral votes, and a candidate needs 270 to be President. So could be important, although I believe that state has voted Democrat in the most recent elections.

Not sure how it works for each party's primaries, though. That may be proportional. But specifics may depend on the state.

So ,if the SCOTUS does not overturn this ruling then it may well hamstring him(more States could indeed follow- maybe even Biden would feel at liberty to enjoy his retirement and there could be a turning of the page)

Not being on the Colorado primary may hamper his chances of becoming the Republican nominee, but if he still manages that then they may see not winning Colorado in the actual Presidential election as not such an issue in the grand scheme. Could certainly reduce the costs of his campaign, as he wouldn't need to spend anything in Colorado!

At last a conspiracy theory that could sink Trump rather than float him

One question I'm not clear on is what the Supreme Court of the US is actually ruling on... is it just the issue of whether the 14th Amendment applies to the President, or is it also whether Trump was guilty of insurrection? If just the former, I assume then that he would need to be found guilty in each individual state to be removed from that state's ballot, but if the latter as well then it could spell the deathknell for Trump's hopes. I have no idea which it is, though.

 

[geordief]

One question I'm not clear on is what the Supreme Court of the US is actually ruling on... is it just the issue of whether the 14th Amendment applies to the President, or is it also whether Trump was guilty of insurrection? If just the former, I assume then that he would need to be found guilty in each individual state to be removed from that state's ballot, but if the latter as well then it could spell the deathknell for Trump's hopes. I have no idea which it is, though.

Good point.It should become clear soon.

 

[Seattle]

In the actual Presidential election, I'm fairly sure that ALL the Colorado electoral votes would go to whichever candidate won the popular vote in that state, even if they won by just 1 vote (hence Trump trying to find a few voters in certain states, and the importance of the Florida vote between Bush and Gore). It's certainly not proportional representation.
Colorado is 9 electoral votes, and a candidate needs 270 to be President. So could be important, although I believe that state has voted Democrat in the most recent elections.

Not sure how it works for each party's primaries, though. That may be proportional. But specifics may depend on the state.
Not being on the Colorado primary may hamper his chances of becoming the Republican nominee, but if he still manages that then they may see not winning Colorado in the actual Presidential election as not such an issue in the grand scheme. Could certainly reduce the costs of his campaign, as he wouldn't need to spend anything in Colorado!
One question I'm not clear on is what the Supreme Court of the US is actually ruling on... is it just the issue of whether the 14th Amendment applies to the President, or is it also whether Trump was guilty of insurrection? If just the former, I assume then that he would need to be found guilty in each individual state to be removed from that state's ballot, but if the latter as well then it could spell the deathknell for Trump's hopes. I have no idea which it is, though.

My understanding is that it's complex, including ruling on whether the Colorado Supreme Court has standing on this issue in the first place, whether the 14th Amendment applies, whether Trump is guilty of insurrection, whether the National Vote Interstate Compact is constitutional and whether it impacts the 14th Amendment. The National Vote Interstate Compact also has to have more states join before it can be ratified and have any effect, so it's complicated.

It will get more interesting (IMO) is it's found that the Colorado Supreme Court does have standing and if a similar case is brought in one of the states more crucial for a Trump win and if the "Compact" is ratified before the election.

Also, the Supreme Court has to agree to here the case in the first place.

 

[Sarkus]

My understanding is that it's complex, including ruling on whether the Colorado Supreme Court has standing on this issue in the first place, whether the 14th Amendment applies, whether Trump is guilty of insurrection, whether the National Vote Interstate Compact is constitutional and whether it impacts the 14th Amendment. The National Vote Interstate Compact also has to have more states join before it can be ratified and have any effect, so it's complicated.

This specific issue isn't part of the Interstate Compact issue, only on the question of insurrection (is he guilty of it, and does that disqualify him under 14th Amendment).

It will get more interesting (IMO) is it's found that the Colorado Supreme Court does have standing and if a similar case is brought in one of the states more crucial for a Trump win and if the "Compact" is ratified before the election.

Yeah, there were some suggesting that Trump may not even appeal the ruling, as Colorado is leaning toward Democrats anyway, but it seems that his campaign has advised that they will be swiftly filing an appeal. It needs to be resolved prior to 4th Jan, apparently, as that is the deadline for setting the ballot (or something like that), at least in Colorado. If the SCOTUS haven't ruled by then, or decline to take it, then Trump will definitely not be on the ballot in Colorado.

Also, the Supreme Court has to agree to here the case in the first place.

Almost certain that they will, I think. It's a sufficiently serious matter regarding the Constitution, and there is some urgency so I feel it will be expedited appropriately. Similar to the question of Presidential immunity that he's trying to argue to almost everything.

 

[candy]

As I understand this they ruled that Trump engaged in insurrection so 14A S3 would bar him from holding office.
I see 2 problems.
First 14A S3 does not say he cannot run.
Second he has never been charged with insurrection which would require a jury verdict to invoke 14A S3.
I am concerned that this will inflame the magasphere.

Unrelated
I saw a yt piece that asked "what would a second Trump presidency look like". My first reaction was I don't want to know.

 

[Sarkus]

As I understand this they ruled that Trump engaged in insurrection so 14A S3 would bar him from holding office.
I see 2 problems.
First 14A S3 does not say he cannot run.

Many Constitutional lawyers argue otherwise, that 14A S3 does apply to the President. Hence the need for the SCOTUS to have a look and make a ruling.
For example, in the notes of the drafting sessions around the Amendment:
"During the debate on Section Three, one Senator asked why ex-Confederates “may be elected President or Vice President of the United States, and why did you all omit to exclude them? I do not understand them to be excluded from the privilege of holding the two highest offices in the gift of the nation.” Another Senator replied that the lack of specific language on the Presidency and Vice-Presidency was irrelevant: “Let me call the Senator’s attention to the words ‘or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States.’”
- A CRS report (Congressional Research Service)

I.e. it seemed clear to those drafting it that those words intended the disqualification to include the President and Vice-President. How much weight will be given to this we will possibly see.

Second he has never been charged with insurrection which would require a jury verdict to invoke 14A S3.

Does it need a conviction? That same CRS report as linked above suggests:
"Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment does not expressly require a criminal conviction, and historically, one was not necessary. Reconstruction Era federal prosecutors brought civil actions in court to oust officials linked to the Confederacy, and Congress in some cases took action to refuse to seat Members."

But one of the key arguments from the Colorado Supreme Court dissenters was that it would need a court to establish guilt before applying 14A S3.

I am concerned that this will inflame the magasphere.

Anything that goes against Trump will inflame the magasphere, true or otherwise.

I saw a yt piece that asked "what would a second Trump presidency look like". My first reaction was I don't want to know.

Unfortunately a large number in the US do seem to want to know. He's still got quite the backing, even if some of the more sensible Republicans seem to be distancing themselves. Of course, should he win their nomination, they'll all once again be behind him.
Anyhoo - yeah, it would be interesting for sure. If he follows through on his threats and trash-talk then he will weaponise the judiciary, and appoint people to specifically target those he feels has wronged him. But then the Republican party as a whole aren't above such acts, as even now they're holding an Impeachment Inquiry not to see if Biden has in fact committed the impeachable offence that they're accusing him of, but rather to see if there's any impeachable offence to accuse him of in the first place.
I.e. it's a fishing expedition. Such inquiries (should) come after the accusation, not to establish whether there is anything to accuse.

Interesting times, for sue.

 

[candy]

The problem is that 14A S3 is about serving not about running for the office.
The last line provides for a get out of jail free card to "remove such disability". Prohibiting him running would not allow for last part.

 

[Seattle]

I think the SC will strike it down on due process issues ultimately.

 

[Neddy Bate]

Yes, but I predict he will not run as an independent and destroy the GOP,, as he easily could. I don't think he could accept losing as a third party candidate.

But I think my prediction is still a pretty safe bet, because he will most likely be the GOP candidate anyway, and so will not have to run as a third party. They are feckless and shameless enough to no longer be concerned about the embarrassment and disgrace of his attempted coup. That lasted about one day for them, and even then was kept mostly behind the scenes.

I still stand behind my predictions from March 2023 that Trump will not be a third party candidate, because he will be the Republican party nominee. And by "Republican party, nominee", I mean, including the Supreme Court. Just watch as they thread the needle and try to explain that he is Totes good to go. At this point, my only hope is with the voters.

 

[Neddy Bate]

Oh look, today the Supremes decided not to rule on the question of presidential immunity. Why am I not surprised?