2024 US Presidential Elections Megathread

[The Minsky Moment]

You are of course correct in your legal interpretation, but I'm not so sure the US Supreme Court will care about long recognized legal principles like standing.

It's always a concern that the Republican Party Supreme Court feels no compulsion to follow the law and precedent, but
1.  The case would have to work its way up the chain of District, Circuit, and RPSC before the RPSC could make a ruling.  That would take many months.
2. The RPSC isn't in session anyway, and doesn't reconvene until October 7th.  Even if they considered the case and ruled that same day, all that would happen in the worst case is that they would remand the decision on standing back down to the district court.  Then, there would have to be a trial before the verdict could be reached, and the District Court wouldn't even be able to schedule such a trial before the election.

Hypothetically (because so far there is only an FEC complaint on file), the case would be initiated along with a request for emergency injunctive relief demanding to freeze the funds.  That could receive expedited treatment if put before a sympathetic judge. Depending on the outcome a motion seeking an emergency injunctive order can be obtained outside the Supreme Court term by directing it for the Justice responsible for the judicial circuit where the case is pending.

I agree there doesn't seem like there is a viable procedural or substantive basis for such an order, but if a court were inclined to act, it could be done in time to impact the campaign. As of even a year ago, I would have felt safe saying there is 0 chance of that happening.  After the last Supreme Court term, though, I really don't know what to expect anymore.  There is nothing this Court can do anymore that would surprise me.

[garbon]

So it is Trump, the felon, and Vance, the fraudster "hillbilly" against Harris, the cat lady with the coconut trees.

This is, well, just surreal. No wonder we older people reminisce about the past.

Rose colored much?

I suppose.
I think I have seen a lot of politicians and parties going down the wrong path in my lifetime. Don't mistake that for me not supporting Harris.

The world needs the US. And it needs a United States not run by Project 2025 and a felon. I think most of us are just as invested in this as you are, garbon.

My political views, well, they are probably suspect to many here. But this is not a political view. It is an existential one. I support Harris. And I really hope she can win. At this point, after watching the RNC clips and reading the speeches, I would support a fucking living doll instead of Trump.

I just meant that for instance in the 90s we were looking at semen on a dress. I'm not sure a time existed when politicians were laudable though certainly Trump has brought us to some low lows.

[Valmy]

In the 80s we had a senile old man in the office who couldn't remember he was selling weapons to the Iranians to fund death squads in Nicaragua.

[HVC]

In the 80s we had a senile old man in the office who couldn't remember he was selling weapons to the Iranians to fund death squads in Nicaragua.

He was also a bad actor in mediocre films. I await Kevin Sorbo's presidential career.

[viper37]

In the 80s we had a senile old man in the office who couldn't remember he was selling weapons to the Iranians to fund death squads in Nicaragua.

He was also a bad actor in mediocre films. I await Kevin Sorbo's presidential career.

Fuck, no. 

We already had one martyr has US President, not another one.

[Norgy]

In the 80s we had a senile old man in the office who couldn't remember he was selling weapons to the Iranians to fund death squads in Nicaragua.

I think he remembered very well what he was agreeing to. I am almost disappointed Ollie North hasn't become a GOP veep nominee.

But the circumstances of a bipolar (in so many ways) world were different. What was done during the Cold War, well, it is sort of a "What happens in Vegas, stays in Vegas".
You supported airdropping some Ukrainian war criminals like Stepan Bandera into the USSR, for crying out loud.
Reagan was a figure me and much of the European left despised. There was a Cuban missile crisis, Goldwater proposing to make Vietnam into a parking lot, Soviet troops on our borders, and crushing both the Hungarian 1956 uprising and the Czech "summer" of 1968. A lot, and I mean a lot, of under-handed shit went down. But if you guys manage to keep that con artist felon out of office, we forgive you. For everything. I think we will even thank you profoundly and profusely.

[crazy canuck]

I don't think it's "conspiracy theory" to suggest senior leaders in an organization have had discussions for weeks on an important issue and then made a consensus decision.

Conspiracy theory is when a person connects falling off their bike to INFLATIONARY BIDENOMICS and Canada doing well in Copa America.

When is the last time you can remember the Democrats making a consensus decision about anything.  For the moment forget about all the divisions within the party and focus on the degree of organizational planning and foresight that would have required.

And then tell me again how reasonable it is to assume that talks went on for weeks and a consensus decision was made.

[grumbler]

You are of course correct in your legal interpretation, but I'm not so sure the US Supreme Court will care about long recognized legal principles like standing.

It's always a concern that the Republican Party Supreme Court feels no compulsion to follow the law and precedent, but
1.  The case would have to work its way up the chain of District, Circuit, and RPSC before the RPSC could make a ruling.  That would take many months.
2. The RPSC isn't in session anyway, and doesn't reconvene until October 7th.  Even if they considered the case and ruled that same day, all that would happen in the worst case is that they would remand the decision on standing back down to the district court.  Then, there would have to be a trial before the verdict could be reached, and the District Court wouldn't even be able to schedule such a trial before the election.

Hypothetically (because so far there is only an FEC complaint on file), the case would be initiated along with a request for emergency injunctive relief demanding to freeze the funds.  That could receive expedited treatment if put before a sympathetic judge. Depending on the outcome a motion seeking an emergency injunctive order can be obtained outside the Supreme Court term by directing it for the Justice responsible for the judicial circuit where the case is pending.

I agree there doesn't seem like there is a viable procedural or substantive basis for such an order, but if a court were inclined to act, it could be done in time to impact the campaign. As of even a year ago, I would have felt safe saying there is 0 chance of that happening.  After the last Supreme Court term, though, I really don't know what to expect anymore.  There is nothing this Court can do anymore that would surprise me.

It would take three levels of the courts to even rule the same way on standing before the circuit judge could begin to rule on emergency injunctive relief, no?  Then the plaintiff, if granted standing, has to show damage caused by the lack of injunctive relief, no?

I guess that "zero probability" is never off the cards, but the difference between zero and whatever chance there is in this case doesn't seem worthy of detailed exploration.

[The Minsky Moment]

It would take three levels of the courts to even rule the same way on standing before the circuit judge could begin to rule on emergency injunctive relief, no?  Then the plaintiff, if granted standing, has to show damage caused by the lack of injunctive relief, no?

I guess that "zero probability" is never off the cards, but the difference between zero and whatever chance there is in this case doesn't seem worthy of detailed exploration.

If Trump were able to find a judge at level one to issue a temporary injunction, that could be accomplished in a matter of days.  Then it would up to Harris to get the higher level courts to reverse it. If Trump was forced to rely on a Supreme Court hail mary it would take longer, but in federal court, orders denying an injunction can be appealed immediately and it is theoretically possible to skip stage 2.  That would likely take weeks not days but it still could be fast enough to do real damage.

A party seeking an injunction must show likelihood success on the merits, irreparable harm, and a favorable balance of the equities.  Could trump do so in this case?  No.  But that only matters if the judiciary does their job and my level of confidence has dropped. Never in a million years did I imagine that even this Supreme Court could drop an opinion like they did in the immunity case. Never in a million years did I imagine that a federal judge would pull the kind of antics Cannon has been pulling in Florida.

[grumbler]

If Trump were able to find a judge at level one to issue a temporary injunction, that could be accomplished in a matter of days.  Then it would up to Harris to get the higher level courts to reverse it. If Trump was forced to rely on a Supreme Court hail mary it would take longer, but in federal court, orders denying an injunction can be appealed immediately and it is theoretically possible to skip stage 2.  That would likely take weeks not days but it still could be fast enough to do real damage.

So, all that Harris has to do to cripple the Trump campaign is to find a sympathetic judge to impound all of the Trump campaign's money via emergency injunctive relief and then fight to delay the granting of relief for that injunction?  I'm wondering why this doesn't happen frequently, in that case. 

A party seeking an injunction must show likelihood success on the merits, irreparable harm, and a favorable balance of the equities.  Could trump do so in this case?  No.  But that only matters if the judiciary does their job and my level of confidence has dropped. Never in a million years did I imagine that even this Supreme Court could drop an opinion like they did in the immunity case. Never in a million years did I imagine that a federal judge would pull the kind of antics Cannon has been pulling in Florida.

Would the corrupt judge's granting an injunction also sequester the money Harris raises after the injunction is granted?  If not, I can't see Harris being unable to raise $100 million in outrage money should Trump "win" his case for standing and then an injunction. 

[crazy canuck]

So now you're delving into conspiracy theory, combined with a very odd assertion that there is a false sense of urgency.

There is certainly urgency. And how do you explain the fact that no other contender has come forward because without that your whole premise fails.  It's impossible to have another process with contenders if there are no other contenders.  It just turns out that pretty much everybody else is reading the situation differently than you.   That's not a conspiracy that's just that everybody else sees it differently.  In other words, you might be the one who isn't viewing this situation accurately.

I think Biden endorsing Harris very shortly after withdrawing more or less ended any alternative - and those candidates deciding either it wasn't the right time or they didn't have a chance (which I think was basically inevitable after Biden's decision - unless there was a huge reaction against Harris in the immediate aftermath).

But I don't think they're just individuals. I think those decisions will have been in the context of senior Democrats talking to each other constantly every day since the debate about how to get Biden to step down and what to do if he does. I think in part, with previous discussions of blitz primaries, they concluded they needed to do it quickly, unity and avoiding the risk of division was very important and Harris is a good enough candidate (and has been vetted).

The thing I started with is that I think if that last assessment turns out to be wrong, they might regret the other two. And I don't know if it will but I think the last one is more important and will have more of an impact than the other two.

Edit: I've realised I've accidentally been channelling Kamala Harris - the presidential nomination didn't fall out of a coconut tree

The more details we find out about what happened immediate after Biden announced he was stepping down the less likely your scenario of senior party operative, making the decision behind the scene becomes.

This detailed analysis of what Harris did immediately after and for the next 48 hours explains why she got all the support.  It had everything to do with her and her team and not so much your theory of party insiders deciding everything well beforehand.

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/07/24/us/politics/kamala-harris-democrats-nomination.html

[crazy canuck]

Turns out the Democrats have stumbled onto the best strategy for defeating Trump.  Give people and the media something else to talk about.

[Tamas]

Turns out the Democrats have stumbled onto the best strategy for defeating Trump.  Give people and the media something else to talk about.

Indeed. Just need to keep it up now.

[Norgy]

Turns out the Democrats have stumbled onto the best strategy for defeating Trump.  Give people and the media something else to talk about.

What? You think we journalists are so easily dis...

[The Minsky Moment]

So, all that Harris has to do to cripple the Trump campaign is to find a sympathetic judge to impound all of the Trump campaign's money via emergency injunctive relief and then fight to delay the granting of relief for that injunction?  I'm wondering why this doesn't happen frequently, in that case. 

Because the Democrats still have a sense of shame and because Obama and Biden didn't spend their terms appointing inexperienced shills to the bench whose sole qualification for federal judicial office was loyalty to them and to an extremist pressure group.

Would the corrupt judge's granting an injunction also sequester the money Harris raises after the injunction is granted?

I can't think of any conceivable basis for doing so.
So the answer must be maybe.