Trump Jr.
Trump Jr is options 1&3 so is the best bet for your money.
The loophole in the 22nd amendment is that he can run for VP and then the elected president can step down?
Or be appointed Speaker (don't have to be a member of the House to be Speaker so don't have to win any election aside from majority of House members) and then Pres/VP step down.
I think Sr. Will probably be dead or senile by then, which is why I said Jr., but the Putin-esque scenario of a patsy with Trump as VP is pretty plausible. The speaker thing wouldn't happen, the whole point is the ticket with him on it will win the primary.
It's hard to conceive of anything besides a 3rd Trump term or the party in tatters.
Thank god he's old and decrepit. Imagine if he'd hijacked this dumb fucking country at age 60.
You made me think about this for 30 seconds.
Can't we at least spend a month or two just dreading a Trump Presidency without also dreading another election?
8: this dumb fucking country
I've been trying to stifle my rage as I intellectually appreciate that it is unhelpful at best, and probably harmful, at multiple levels.
And yet it remains very, very, very unstifled.
Trump vote % has crept below 50%. margin at 1.7%, somewhat less than HRC's PV margin.
My daughter rightly called out the patheticness of my pointing that out to her. Rightly so, but I need a bigger audience than my own flesh and blood for the humiliation to really stick.
JPS, I genuinely appreciate you beating this [choose one: drum; dead horse] so much. I value the knowledge and I agree with you that it's worth remembering.
I just get tired of people talking about "his resounding margin" and the like.
As of now, he wins MI/PA/WI by ~230K, lost them by ~250K* in 2020. With ~17.6M votes this represents about 1 in 75 voters changing over (in actuality more complex patterns of vote changing, new voters etc. but that is what it nets out to.)
But as usual the wonder is not that the horse talks well, but that it talks at all.
*When I first posted that a week or so back I made a math error and had 100K more in 2020.
I don't think even a Culture Mind could answer the OP. Way too much complex interdependence with the random firing of the neurons of maniacs.
Trump will probably be incapacitated before the end of this term. He declined obviously over the past year and that ball only picks up speed once it starts rolling. I don't think Vance has the charisma to win the nomination, even as an incumbent. Maybe Trump Jr can pick up the mantle, but among the current politicos I'd expect Tom Cotton and Josh Hawley to be contenders. However, given the current trajectory of this dumb fucking country, there are likely multiple billionaire "outsider" campaigns being plotted this very moment.
If Vance becomes President before the next election, then probably him I guess. But he'll be very uphill.
I think he'll appeal to the MAGA base; and that's a powerful starting point.
Yes. Dem margins (and 2024 votes essentially all in in those states*)
WI -30K
MI -80K
PA -122K
2020
WI +20K
MI +155K
PA +80K
And for agonies sake 2015:
WI - 24K
MI -11K
PA -44K
*In senate Casey closed to 17K but is going to fall short.
Realizing I should have added
7) Run? Election?
for the pessimists.
8) 2028?
For the *real* pessimists.
9) Putin himself, on a ticket with Netanyahu
10) Gemini, on a ticket with Claude (unless chatGPT gets a more normal sounding name)
The loophole in the 22nd amendment is that he can run for VP and then the elected president can step down?
12th amendment. "But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States." Trump cannot be elected VP in 2028 because he won't be eligible to be President. And there's no way to leapfrog the VP if the President resigns: 25th Amendment "In case of the removal of the President from office or of his death or resignation, the Vice President shall become President."
"Ah, but what happens if there isn't a VP? Could they name Trump as Speaker? Then he'd be next in line."
The Presidential Succession Act of 1947 says that the Speaker of the House becomes acting president if there is no president or VP for whatever reason, but only if the Speaker is himself constitutionally eligible to become president. If he's not, then the President pro tem becomes acting president.
At least no one here is saying it'll be Musk.
If Vance is still vice-president, then presumably he gets Trump's backing for the candidacy, which will assure him the nomination.
If Vance isn't still VP, and it's because Trump is dead (there is no way that he will resign, be impeached, or be removed for incapacity, under any circumstances) and Vance has succeeded, I think Vance gets the nomination - it would be very unusual for a sitting president to be successfully primaried.
But there's a third option: Vance doesn't make it to 2028 as VP. Trump has some sort of falling out with him (and this is quite likely because that's what he did with his last VP and almost his entire last cabinet) and demands his resignation, and Vance obediently resigns. In which case he'll need a new VP, who will, vide supra, be the obvious 2028 candidate.
Who will that be? Trump Jr, I think.
What's the betting on a "Repeal the 22nd Amendment" campaign, I wonder?
You're not thinking like a results-oriented FedSoc judge.
22nd: No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once.
It only talks about being elected to President (extended by logic of 12 to being elected VP). But if one should be appointed to the office of VP by Congress should the office be vacant? That's not being elected so 22nd doesn't apply, QED.
Reagan in fact had a brief campaign against the 22nd towards the end of his second term. I remember my parents being pissed about it.
https://www.nytimes.com/1987/11/29/us/reagan-wants-end-of-two-term-limit.html
Trump Jr. - or Ivanka. First woman president! I really think I need to read some Tacitus. Why is Pennsylvania that the margin is so much worse than in 2015?
It only talks about being elected to President (extended by logic of 12 to being elected VP). But if one should be appointed to the office of VP by Congress should the office be vacant? That's not being elected so 22nd doesn't apply, QED.
I don't think that's right: if you are ineligible to be president you can't become VP, not by election, not by appointment, not in any other way. 12th amendment. "But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States."
34: The main function of Trump's chosen successor will be to protect Trump (and maybe his clan) after he stops being president - classic Latin American succession situation, in fact. In LatAm it'd be the wife's job but Melania isn't eligible and her loyalty is doubtful anyway. So, a child, or a pliable subordinate with no will of his own whose loyalty is beyond question. If Vance makes it four years as VP then he will be the latter almost by definition, but then again Trump probably thought Pence was the latter and then he turned on him.
Ivanka would probably be more capable due to a lack of drug habit, but she does have the downside of being a chick. Then again, that might actually be a plus because it will make it very obvious that Trump is still pulling the strings, because everyone will know that a chick can't really be in charge of everything, she's obviously just a mouthpiece with good hair like Hope Hicks. People might think Jr is actually in charge and let him decide stuff without checking with Trump first.
If you keep it in the family, you could work on getting the 22nd repealed over time.
32: good for him. It's a bad idea and should never have been implemented.
It would allow 2028 to be the election that everyone on both sides, including the candidates, wants to see: Trump vs Obama.
Marjorie Taylor Greene is my bet--she has his authentic crazy and a certain deranged charisma of her own. Plus she's made surprising inroads with the establishment.
Marjorie Taylor Greene is my bet--she has his authentic crazy and a certain deranged charisma of her own. Plus she's made surprising inroads with the establishment.
Marjorie Taylor Greene is my bet--she has his authentic crazy and a certain deranged charisma of her own. Plus she's made surprising inroads with the establishment.
I still don't think Vance will be obedient to Trump. I think he's smart and ambitious and dislikes Trump. He'd go for the king if he thinks he can pull it off.
34: Why is Pennsylvania that the margin is so much worse than in 2015? (2016).
Recall that these are raw number changes in close elections in a pool of 7 million voters. So the 2016 to 2024 margin shift in PA was only about 2.5%. Actually somewhat less than the national 3.8% national shift 2016 ->2024.
I know this is ridiculous but so is reality: is the 22nd Amendment "self-executing"? If he just ran and states tried to keep him off the ballot would it turn out, whoops, there's no rule a dog can't play basketball and the Constitution doesn't authorize states to count presidential terms?(Maybe Article 2 is the same way and states aren't authorized to check ID?)
The 22nd amendment doesn't say you're "constitutionally ineligible to the office of President," it'd be ridiculous to say that the sitting president is constitutionally ineligible to the office. It merely says that you can't be *elected* president, which is totally different.
44: Yeah, I don't really buy most of the criticisms of the campaign, because in the states where Harris campaigned the hardest she did clearly better relative to the rest of the country (largely because of better turnout, I think?).
46: ooh, interesting point. Sorry, I didn't get that initially. So you're arguing that 12A says "no one ineligible to be president can be vice-president", but the only constitutional limits on being president are the ones elsewhere about being 35, being born in the US, and so forth. 22A is simply a constitutional limit on who can be elected president.
So if you are otherwise eligible but have served two terms, and you can work out a way of becoming president that doesn't involve being elected, 22A permits it.
Honestly can't see a good reason to have term limits. If a majority of the people want a third term of Reagan - or Obama, or even god forbid Trump - why shouldn't they get it? It's not like it's an uninformed decision by that point, they've seen the guy do the job for eight years already!
Watching term limits play out in local government is changing my mind. Here you just have to sit out for one cycle, and then you can jump back in.
In ways I don't have time to expound upon until after I teach.
Right, 46 is exactly what I'm getting at. Now mind you that's not how I personally would interpret the combination of the 12th and 22nd, but I think it's a totally plausible reading and much simpler and more straightforward than lots of other nonsense the Federalist Society comes up with.
(I agree with 49. In a perfect world we would have repealed both the 22nd amendment and the ban on naturalized citizens becoming president, and got the Schwarzenegger/Obama 2016 election that everyone wanted. It's a great tragedy that we got Trump instead of Schwarzenegger, when the latter is better and more popular, while still having most of the same appeal.)
(er, 48, not 46.)
In a perfect world we would have repealed both the 22nd amendment and the ban on naturalized citizens becoming president, and got the Schwarzenegger/Obama 2016 election that everyone wanted.
The ban on naturalised citizens being president is an odd one. They can still be in Congress, or sit on the Supreme Court - and it's not like being natural-born means you can't be subject to foreign influence.
(I still maintain that the requirement to be a natural-born citizen is a reference to birth by Caesarian section. Talk radio hosts should have been ranting about how Obama was from his mother's womb untimely rent.)
It maybe made more sense back in the early days of the Republic, when getting absorbed into another country was a very real possibility, certainly doesn't make much sense now.
It is only slightly newer than the ban on Catholics becoming King, which is still in force, so it's not like we are doing much better over here.
49: That's how you get Netanyahu, or Orban, or Putin. When someone has enough of a grip on power, the concept of the public's "informed decision", not the firmest of concepts on a normal day, becomes even shakier.
That's how you get Netanyahu, or Orban, or Putin.
It's also how you get FDR, or Gladstone, or Pitt the Younger, or Helmut Kohl.
What actually happens if you have a government with term limits and an authoritarian comes into power is that he changes the rule about term limits. Many examples. It's about as effective as having a rule that says "No Authoritarians".
Netanyahu is a particularly bad example because he got kicked out of office twice after losing elections! Clearly he didn't have enough of a "grip on power" to befuddle the poor innocent electorate in 1999 or in 2021.
Well, 1999 was a while ago. He's come a long way since then. And yes, his grip on power was such by 2021 that, befuddled electorate or not, the incoming government barely stood a chance and indeed succumbed to his tricks in a short while. Also, I know that Fox News etc. are a long-running right-wing project in the US, but in Israel the crippling of the journalistic media was a long-running personal project of his spanning decades.
What actually happens if you have a government with term limits and an authoritarian comes into power is that he changes the rule about term limits.
This depends on how strong the rule is and how powerful the authoritarian. This argument sounds too much like "if you outlaw X, only outlaws will X" - it really comes down to the implementation of the rule. More generally, this seems like an era of rule-dismantling in general, and of course no one law can stop an authoritarian, especially now that they all share their playbook with each other and cooperate globally. But it's either laws or civil war, and people generally try to avoid civil wars.
I've become pro-term limits on a local level because it forces voters out of their rut, and makes them think about who they actually want for office. Things get done even when Council is inexperienced, because staff nudges them towards what needs to happen.
Here you just have to sit out for one cycle, and then you can jump back in.
I somewhat like the idea of term limits that don't completely shut elected officials out. My impression, which is just an impression, is that in places where a termed out official can never run again, it encourages a couple different kinds of cycles, such as people trying to run for any other office they can find, or people trying to find the next non-elected but still governmentally-related thing (like lobbying or consulting or staff). I guess that's not necessarily bad but does the loss of termed-out good* people outweigh the termed out bad* people? That system seems like it encourages people to look at state/local government as temporary, stepping stone jobs.
*For whatever values of good or bad.
61: Term limits in legislative bodies and locally in general are good if you want outside forces with money to have greater influence in government. There is a reason that outfits like the Heritage Foundation push term limits. Developers tend to be behind the push for local term limits.
NMM to Gaetz's AG nomination, for any sickos who were.
makes them think about who they actually want for office
You are an optimist. I actually give passing attention to local politics, which is more than 90% of the rest of the city does, and I still essentially just vote for whoever the Durham People's Alliance endorses.
makes them think about who they actually want for office
The way things are now, I think it's much harder to do that for local offices than even for federal - mostly because of the lack of parties. Who has the wherewithal to figure out if nonpartisan candidate James Johnson is more credibly promising better city services than nonpartisan candidate John Jameson? Or if one is an incumbent, what their practical impact actually was to date? We need to bring back parties and facilitate them being different at the local level, so they differentiate city candidates & you can actually see what tendency a candidate is aligning themselves with.
66 Our non-partisan non-judicial candidates are allowed to seek party endorsements. And in my city and county, a Democratic endorsement is basically required. We've repeatedly debated whether we should only endorse one, or whether we should endorse every candidate who seeks it and shares our values. The latter has won out every time, in the last 15 years anyway, but each new central committee cohort gets to reconsider the question.
Which way would you go?
64: American Prospect has a piece on Bondi and how she shut down an investigation into foreclosure mills. Is tethered a Bave signal? I remember he was interested in the Title fraud issues and would love his take on this:
https://prospect.org/justice/2024-11-22-when-pam-bondi-protected-foreclosure-fraudsters/
66: I would go with the latter, as you have done. "Basically a Democrat" is a good signal, even if all or nearly all the candidates have the endorsement. I think the other commenters are talking about situations where you have candidates from the Rainbow Stew party and candidates from the Leopards Eating People's Faces party and no way to know who's who unless you've personally checked and can remember at voting time.
That's also assuming a certain amount of coherence around what are Democratic values. If you've got 1946 Texas Dems together with 2024 Harlem Dems, then the endorsement won't be communicating much.
66: I think the Board of Selectmen (who are part-time) are probably fine. The biggest thing is who:do they hire to be Town manager. School board is regional.
Our legislature sucks so bad, it is ruled with an iron fist by the Senate President and even more so by the House Speaker. Half of the votes are secret. One of the Reps from my town ran for Lt Governor and gave up her seat, but she was already relegated to the basement. The GOP flipped a couple of seats this year, which is rare during a Presidential year. Right now it's 128 Dems to 32 Republicans. Unfortunately we are starting to get some Trumpy-lite Repubs. Senate is 34 Dems and 6 Republicans. I've joked that we need an intra state-party, because just voting Democratic means nothing. So many of the issues that are local - development, rent control are more about/progressive vs not. Plenty of Democratic legislators who are also landlords and opposed to rent control.