-
Recent Posts
Search
Welcome to DCW
Upcoming Events
7/15/24 - GOP Convention
TBD - Democratic Convention
11/5/24 - Election DayTools
Archives
Tag Cloud
2008 Democratic National Convention 2012 Democratic National Convention 2012 Republican National Convention 2016 Democratic National Convention 2016 Republican National Convention 2020 Census 2020 Democratic Convention 2024 Democratic Convention 2024 Republican Convention Abortion Affordable Care Act Alabama Arizona Bernie Sanders California Colorado Donald Trump First Amendment Florida Free Exercise Clause Free Speech Georgia Hillary Clinton Immigration Iowa Joe Biden Kansas Maine Marco Rubio Michigan Missouri Nevada New Hampshire North Carolina Ohio Pennsylvania redistricting South Carolina Supreme Court Ted Cruz Texas United Kingdom Virginia Voting Rights Act WisconsinDCW in the News
Blog Roll
Site Info
-
Recent Posts
Recent Comments
- tmess2 on Election Recap
- Anthony Uplandpoet Watkins on Election Recap
- Anthony Uplandpoet Watkins on Election Recap
- DocJess on Don’t think we’re getting a contested convention
- Matt on Dems to nominate Biden early to avoid GOP Ohio nonsense
Archives
- December 2024
- November 2024
- October 2024
- September 2024
- August 2024
- July 2024
- June 2024
- May 2024
- April 2024
- March 2024
- February 2024
- January 2024
- December 2023
- November 2023
- October 2023
- September 2023
- August 2023
- July 2023
- June 2023
- May 2023
- April 2023
- March 2023
- February 2023
- January 2023
- December 2022
- November 2022
- October 2022
- September 2022
- August 2022
- July 2022
- June 2022
- May 2022
- April 2022
- March 2022
- February 2022
- January 2022
- December 2021
- November 2021
- October 2021
- September 2021
- August 2021
- July 2021
- June 2021
- May 2021
- April 2021
- March 2021
- February 2021
- January 2021
- December 2020
- November 2020
- October 2020
- September 2020
- August 2020
- July 2020
- June 2020
- May 2020
- April 2020
- March 2020
- February 2020
- January 2020
- December 2019
- November 2019
- October 2019
- September 2019
- August 2019
- July 2019
- June 2019
- May 2019
- April 2019
- March 2019
- February 2019
- January 2019
- December 2018
- November 2018
- October 2018
- September 2018
- August 2018
- July 2018
- June 2018
- May 2018
- April 2018
- March 2018
- February 2018
- January 2018
- December 2017
- October 2017
- September 2017
- August 2017
- July 2017
- June 2017
- May 2017
- April 2017
- March 2017
- February 2017
- January 2017
- December 2016
- November 2016
- October 2016
- September 2016
- August 2016
- July 2016
- June 2016
- May 2016
- April 2016
- March 2016
- February 2016
- January 2016
- December 2015
- November 2015
- October 2015
- September 2015
- August 2015
- July 2015
- June 2015
- May 2015
- April 2015
- March 2015
- February 2015
- January 2015
- November 2014
- September 2014
- July 2014
- June 2014
- March 2014
- January 2014
- August 2013
- August 2012
- November 2011
- August 2011
- January 2011
- May 2010
- January 2009
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
- August 2007
- July 2007
- June 2007
- May 2007
- April 2007
- March 2007
- February 2007
- January 2007
- December 2006
- November 2006
- October 2006
- September 2006
- August 2006
- July 2006
- June 2006
- May 2006
- April 2006
- March 2006
- February 2006
- January 2006
- December 2005
- November 2005
Categories
- 2019-nCoV
- 2020 Convention
- 2020 General Election
- 2020DNC
- 2024 Convention
- 2028 Convention
- Anti-Semitism
- Bernie Sanders
- Charlotte
- Chicago
- Civil Rights
- Cleveland
- Climate Change
- Coronavirus
- Coronavirus Tips
- COVID-19
- Debates
- Delegate Count
- Delegates
- Democratic Debates
- Democratic Party
- Democrats
- DemsinPhilly
- DemsInPHL
- Disaster
- DNC
- Donald Trump
- Economy
- Elections
- Electoral College
- Federal Budget
- Freedom of the Press
- General Election Forecast
- GOP
- Healthcare
- Hillary Clinton
- Holidays
- Hotels
- House of Representatives
- Houston
- Identity Politics
- Impeachment
- Iowa Caucuses
- Jacksonville
- Joe Biden
- Judicial
- LGBT
- Mariner Pipeline
- Merrick Garland
- Meta
- Milwaukee
- Money in Politics
- Music
- National Security
- Netroots Nation
- New Yor
- New York
- NH Primary
- Notes from Your Doctor
- NoWallNoBan
- Pandemic
- Philadelphia
- PHLDNC2016
- Platform
- Politics
- Polls
- Presidential Candidates
- Primary and Caucus Results
- Primary Elections
- Public Health
- Rant
- Republican Debates
- Republicans
- Resist
- RNC
- Russia
- Senate
- Snark
- Student Loan Debt
- Sunday with the Senators
- Superdelegates
- Syria
- The Politics of Hate
- Uncategorized
- Vaccines
- War
- Weekly White House Address
Meta
Tag Archives: Donald Trump
South Carolina Recap
It’s hard interpreting the Republican results for president this year. If Donald Trump were the incumbent, the numbers that he is getting would be the sign of substantial opposition within the party. If this year were a truly open primary (i.e. he was not being treated as the “incumbent candidate” by Republicans), his results would be outstanding.
But the bigger story out of Saturday might be at the Congressional District level and is about the House of Representatives, not the presidency. Nikki Haley only won one of the seven congressional districts — the First District. Nancy Mace is the current, two-term, incumbent. She was one of the “Freedom Caucus Eight” who voted to vacate the chair. Kevin McCarthy is apparently planning on supporting a primary challenger to Representative Mace. Does the fact that Nikki Haley got 53% of the vote show that a majority of the Republicans in the First District will support an establishment challenger to a Trumpist candidate. If so, the Representative Mace’s time in Congress might be coming to a quick end. Additionally, while the lines were a little different, the last time that the Republicans were this divided and supported the more extreme primary candidate, the Democrats managed to win this district (in 2018). So, if the Democrats find a credible candidate for the general and Representative Mace wins the primary, perhaps enough real Republicans do not vote in the general or opt to vote for the Democrat to take this seat away from the Freedom Caucus.
Posted in Elections, GOP, House of Representatives, Primary and Caucus Results, Primary Elections
Also tagged Freedom Caucus, Keven McCarthy, Nancy Mace, Nikki Haley, South Carolina
Comments Off on South Carolina Recap
2024 Presidential Primaries — South Carolina Republicans and Michigan
As we head into the last week of February, we are also reaching the end of the authorized early primaries. Under the respective rules of the two parties, there is a preliminary window in which only some states were authorized to hold early primaries/caucuses. For the Republicans, the “regular” primary window opens on March 1. For Democrats, the “regular” primary window opens on the first Tuesday in March (March 5).
For this last week, we have three primaries on the book. First up, today, is the South Carolina Republican primary. South Carolina law allows the parties to choose the date of their own primary, and the two parties have tended to choose different dates (but usually a Saturday). And so we had the Democratic primary several weeks back which was won by President Joe Biden. Now, it’s the Republican primary. While there are seven candidates on the ballot, two of them are not known nationally, and three of the nationally-known candidates have dropped out. In other words, while five of the candidates may get some votes, there are only two with any chance of winning delegates — former South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley and a candidate who ineligible to be president, Donald Trump. South Carolina Republicans use a “winner-take-most” system for allocating delegates. In other words, each congressional district has three delegates and whomever wins that district gets all three delegates. Likewise, there are twenty-nine at-large delegates, and whomever wins the state gets all twenty-nine delegates. Especially with only two serious candidates in the races, whomever wins statewide will have won at least one congressional district (and probably will have won more than one). Thus, the winner of the primary is guaranteed to take at least 32 of the 50 delegates (which is why this type of system is referred to as winner-take-most). Despite the fact that Nikki Haley used to be the governor of South Carolina, the traditional Republican Party in South Carolina is dead and has been replaced by the Trump Party. While anybody who did not vote in the Democratic Primary could theoretically vote in the Republican Primary, there probably will not be enough independents and Democrats voting to save the Republican Party from itself. Polls show Donald Trump leading by a wide enough margin that he should win all fifty delegates, and the only question is whether Nikki Haley can make it close enough to steal a district or two.
On Tuesday, we will primaries for both parties in Michigan. President Joe Biden should win the state easily. Neither Representative Dean Phillips nor Marianne Williamson is a serious contender to reach the fifteen percent to win delegates. The real contender to take delegates away from President Biden is “uncommitted.” Representative Rashida Tlaib has been encouraging voters to vote for uncommitted in protest of President Biden’s middle of the road stance on Israel’s response to Hamas’s invasion of Israel. While the pro-Palestinian progressive wing of the Democratic Party has a problem with Israel trying to remove Hamas from the Gaza Strip, if President Biden were to do what they want him to do, it would guarantee Donald Trump’s victory in November. If uncommitted stays below 15% (state-wide or in any individual district), President Biden will win all of the delegates (state-wide or in that district). The largest districts have seven delegates; so it is unlikely that uncommitted will get more than one delegate in any individual district. The one exception to that might be Representative Tlaib’s district. And the issue in that district will be whether uncommitted can get to the 21% necessary to win a second delegate. If uncommitted does not win any delegates in that district, we could see a primary challenge to Representative Tlaib emerge. State-wide, there are twenty-five at-large delegates and fifteen party-leader delegates. As such, if uncommitted were to get to fifteen percent state-wide, uncommitted would get, at least, four at-large and two party-leader delegates. But the expectation is that President Biden will win almost all of the 117 delegates at stake on Tuesday.
Posted in Donald Trump, Elections, Primary Elections
Also tagged Dean Phillips, Joe Biden, Marianne Williamson, Michigan, Nikki Haley, Rashida Tlaib, South Carolina
Comments Off on 2024 Presidential Primaries — South Carolina Republicans and Michigan
Presidential Primaries — South Carolina, Nevada, and Virgin Islands
Over the next week, we will have four/five primary contests for the two parties. (Four if you only count the binding contests, five if you count the beauty contests.) This list includes the first two sanctioned contests on the Democratic side.
First up is today’s Democratic primary in South Carolina. South Carolina is a little bit different from the rest of the country. While South Carolina has a state-run primary, it allows the parties to choose the date of its own presidential primary. As a result, it is not unusual for the two parties to choose different days. (That flexibility allowed the Democratic National Committee to place South Carolina at the start of the primary schedule.) The Democrats will hold their primary today, but the Republicans will not hold their primary for another three weeks.
As with most other states, the Democratic primary is essentially multiple primaries at the same time. There are, effectively, two state-wide primaries — one for at-large delegates and one for “pledged party leader and elected officials” (PLEO) delegates. Meanwhile, there is a primary in each congressional district. Voters will cast only one vote, but it will be counted in each of the relevant contests. For each of these races, the key number is 15%. Any candidate who gets 15% will get at least one delegate from that pool of delegate.
Posted in Presidential Candidates, Primary and Caucus Results, Primary Elections
Also tagged Dean Phillips, Joe Biden, Marianne Williamson, Nevada, Nikki Haley, South Carolina, Virgin Islands
Comments Off on Presidential Primaries — South Carolina, Nevada, and Virgin Islands
New Hampshire Primary
Today is round two for the Republicans with the New Hampshire Primary. Because primary dates are set by state law, there will also be a non-binding primary (a/k/a “beauty contest”) on the Democratic side (more on that below).
While there will be other candidates on the ballot, there are only two major candidates on the Republican side — Donald Trump and Nikki Haley. Given that New Hampshire has a semi-open primary in which independents can vote in either party’s primary, it is believed that there will be a significant number of “moderates” who opt to vote in the Republican primary. If there is a chance for Nikki Haley to win nationally, she needs a win in New Hampshire. Given Trump’s many issues (legal, physical, mental), the Republicans really do not need the chaos that would ensue if Trump “wins” the nomination but has to withdraw before the convention. (And while it is hard to project what the Supreme Court intends to do, it is easier for them to do the legally correct thing if Trump is not the presumptive Republican nominee.) New Hampshire is a proportional state, so unless Haley or Trump blows the other out of the water what really matters here is the perception that Haley can compete and beat Trump than the actual delegate count.)
On the Democratic side, the timing of the New Hampshire primary (set by state law) violates the national delegate selection rules. As a result, the primary is a non-binding primary. Because the New Hampshire Democratic Party has decided to resist the national rules and support the unenforceable state law mandating that other states let New Hampshire goes first, New Hampshire has had its delegate total reduced to ten delegates. More importantly, we do not yet have an approved plan for how those delegates will be chosen.
Posted in Joe Biden, NH Primary, Primary and Caucus Results, Primary Elections
Also tagged Dean Phillips, Joe Biden, Marianne Williamson, New Hampshire, Nikki Haley
Comments Off on New Hampshire Primary
Iowa Caucuses 2024
The 2024 presidential primaries officially kicks off on Monday night in the frigid cold of Iowa.
Traditionally, the Iowa Caucuses have three major components. First, they are used to create the local organization of the political parties as caucus attendees elect the precinct’s representatives to the county committee. Second, they are used to choose the delegates to the county convention (which in turn will choose the congressional district/state convention delegates who will elect the national convention delegates). Third, a preference vote is taken which is used to allocate national convention delegates.
Thanks in part to Iowa’s move to the right and past problems with counting and report the preference vote, the national Democratic Party has rescinded its permission for Iowa to conduct a pre-March preference vote. Unlike their counterparts in New Hampshire, Iowa Democrats have worked with the national party (in the hopes that in the future they might get a pre-March spot back). But it is helpful to have both parties hold their precinct caucuses on the same date and holding a later event would create timing issues. So the Democrats will use their caucuses for the purposes of electing party officials and the delegates who will attend the county conventions. But to comply with national party rules, there will be no presidential preference vote on Monday. Instead, there will be a party-run primary that will conclude in March.
Posted in Iowa Caucuses, Primary Elections
Also tagged Asa Hutchinson, Iowa, Nikki Haley, Ronald DeSantis, Vivek Ramaswamy
Comments Off on Iowa Caucuses 2024
The Oral Argument in United States vs. Donald J. Trump (a/k/a The Insurrectionist)
Today, at 9:30 a.m. Eastern Time, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit will hold oral arguments on Donald Trump’s appeal of the decision that he is not immune from criminal prosecution for the events of January 6. Apparently, the accused intends to personally attend this argument. (For the reasons discussed below, his attorneys are likely unhappy with the decision and Trump may throw a temper tantrum either during or after the argument.) For the millions who are unable to make it to the federal courthouse, the D.C. Circuit will be livestreaming the audio of the argument. And the recording will posted on the court’s website by the close of business today.
I am not going to spend time on the merits of the case because the merits are really one-sided. The trial judge in this case is respected by her peers and her order thoroughly demonstrates why Trump’s claim of immunity has no factual or legal merit. It will be affirmed. Instead, this post is intended to help readers understand what will be happening.
The first thing to understand is that oral argument is the last part of the case. Even at the state level, it is expected that the judges will have read the written arguments (formally known as briefs of the party). If the judges have the time, they may also have looked at the relevant portions of the trial court records to answer any factual questions that they may have about the proceeding. They may also have looked at the key cases cited by the parties to understand what those cases actually say (instead of how the attorneys have tried to spin them). In short, the judges have almost certainly formed an opinion about the issues in the case, and oral argument is a last chance for the parties to correct any misimpressions that they judges may have.
Posted in Donald Trump, Judicial
Also tagged D.C. Circuit, Oral Argument
Comments Off on The Oral Argument in United States vs. Donald J. Trump (a/k/a The Insurrectionist)
The Trump Ballot Case and the Precedents of Nat Turner and John Brown
On Friday, the United Staes Supreme Court decided to grant President Trump’s Petition for Certiorari in Trump vs. Anderson. However, it took no action on the companion Petition for Certiorari filed by the Colorado Republican Party in Colorado State Republican Central Committee v. Anderson. Before turning to the issues raised in this case, there are two things to note about the Supreme Court order granting review and the petitions filed.
First, in granting Trump’s petition, the Supreme Court implicitly recognized the necessity to resolve this issue quickly. The briefs of Trump and his enablers in the Republican Party (and related organizations) are due on January 18, less than two weeks after the order granting review (as opposed to the usual 45 days). The briefs of Trump’s challengers and the Colorado election official who are in the middle of this case are due thirteen days later on January 31 (along with any outside brief from individuals who want to support Democracy) with any reply briefs due five days later on February 5. This contrast to the normal deadlines of 45 days for petitioner’s brief with respondent’s brief due 30 days later and the reply brief an additional 35 days later. Additionally, the case will be argued on February 8 which is a special setting in the middle of what would otherwise have been the Supreme Court’s winter break.
Second, the Supreme Court did not rewrite Trump’s question presented. Typically, the question prsented in a petition for certiorari is narrowly focused on one legal issue. For example, did the lower court err in finding that the potential for the metabolizing of blood alcohol content is an automatic exigent circumstance permitting law enforcement officers to conduct a warrantless blood draw? If there are multiple issues in a case, the petition will present multiple questions on which the Supreme Court can pick and choose which issues will be considered at the time that the petition is granted. For example, the Colorado Republican Party presented three issues: 1) does Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment apply to the President; 2) is Section 3 self-executing; and 3) does disqualifying a candidate violate the First Amendment rights of political parties. By contrast, the Trump Petition, after noting the ruling (that his actions and the office of President fell within the restrictions of Section) simply asks whether the Colorado Supreme Court erred by excluding him from the ballot. In other words, unlike the usual question which identifies a specific legal error in the ruling, the Supreme Court appears to be allowing the consideration of any potential theory on why the Colorado Supreme Court erred.
Posted in 2024 Convention, Donald Trump, Elections, GOP, Judicial, Republicans, RNC
Also tagged Colorado, Insurrection, John Brown, Nate Turner, rebellion, Section 3, Section 5., Supreme Court, Whiskey Rebellion
Comments Off on The Trump Ballot Case and the Precedents of Nat Turner and John Brown
Supreme Court Update
Before departing for the holidays, the Supreme Court had a couple of “gifts” of merits review in a couple of high profile cases with the possibility of a third before New Year’s.
Starting at the top of the list is the dubious case brought by Mrs. Senator Josh Hawley. (Normally, the fact that a relative of a politician is involved in a case would not be noteworthy but whne you put yourself out as a power couple and you file the case in a location which assures that it will be heard by a judge who donated to the relative’s campaign and the relative played a large role in getting that judge appointed to the bench, this clearly qualifies as a team effort for which both share the blame.) In this case, plaintiffs are a group of doctors who claim that they have standing to challenge the FDA’s decisions on approving Mifepristone because at some point they may be forced to provide treatment for a patient who took Mifepristone and had complications. These political doctors sought to both invalidate recent changes to the guidance that the FDA gives on Mifepristone and its original approval. Having filed the case in a location that assured them that the case would be heard by a judge who would twist the law and the facts to rule in their favor, they succeeded at the trial court on both parts of their case. The FDA and the drug manufacture appealed this rubber stamp decision to the Fifth Circuit. Even the Fifth Circuit could not twist the law in a manner that would allow them to affirm the decision as it relates to the original approval of Mifepristone, but they did find flaws in the administrative process which allowed them to affirm the decision with regards to the more recent changes approving a broader use for Mifepristone. Everybody then sought U.S. Supreme Court review. Several months ago, the U.S. Supreme Court stayed the Fifth Circuit’s ruling. This past week, the Supreme Court granted the review sought by the FDA and the drug manufacturer, but denied the review sought by the medical hacks.
While this Supreme Court having any case related to abortion is always a matter of concern, the decision to take the FDA’s appeal and reject the appeal by the medical hacks is the best result possible for the pro-choice community. And, the main issue in the case is the FDA procedures for approving medications and expanding “on label” uses after initial approval. As such, the impact of a ruling against the FDA in this case would have a major negative impact on pharmaceutical companies. As such, it is possible that six of the justices might put the abortion aspects of this case to the side and simply focus on it as an administrative procedure case. If not, there is always the November elections.
Posted in Donald Trump, Judicial
Also tagged Abortion, January 6, Josh Hawley, mifepristone, special prosecutor
Comments Off on Supreme Court Update
Candidate Trump — Felon Ballot Access Restrictions and the Fourteenth Amendment
We are heading into uncharted waters. A major political party has become a cult in thrall to a person who may not be eligible to run for president (or at least barred from the ballot in several states) who insists that he should be the nominee in 2024. Add to that a martyr complex by the true believers who have taken over many state parties, and we are heading into potential chaos for the Fall of 2024.
Of course, one of the complexities is that the national election for president is when the electoral college meets and votes and sends those votes to Congress to be counted. Up until that Wednesday in December, we have fifty-one elections for presidential electors and more elections for delegates to the nominating convention. Each of the jurisdictions (states and territories) involved in these elections have different rules and procedures.
Having said that, there are several general things that are consistent from state to state. First, for the general elections, the parties certify the name of their presidential and vice-presidential candidate in late August or early September. Second, there is a state election authority which receives and processes the candidate paperwork for state and federal candidates. For the most part, these officials rarely refuse candidate filings, but they are tasked with determining whether the filing to be on the ballot is complete and shows that the candidate is eligible to run under state law. Third, decisions on whether a candidate qualifies to be on the ballot is subject to some form of judicial review. But, assuming that the election authority finds that a candidate is eligible to run, the different states have different rules on who can challenge that determination. In all, or almost every state, the opposing candidates have the right to bring such a case, but the rules as to who else has that right differs from state to state. Fourth, if, for some reason, a party’s nominee has to be replaced on the ballot, it generally falls on the state party to name a replacement. Fifth, for the presidential election, there is actually a ticket composed of the candidates for president, the vice-president, and the presidential electors. It is the last two or three where the potential for chaos emerges.
Posted in Donald Trump, Elections, Electoral College, Judicial, Uncategorized
Also tagged Ballot Access, Felon Disqualification, Fourteenth Amendment, U.S. Supreme Court
Comments Off on Candidate Trump — Felon Ballot Access Restrictions and the Fourteenth Amendment