Post New

Offshore betting markets like Polymarket mislead voters by substituting right-wing “vibes” for data.

https://www.meidasplus.com/p/the-problem-with-poly...

there are scientific problems as well.
one common cliche is that betting markets must be better than polls since real money is stake.
but i have not seen any strong study that describes the amount of participants and the distribution of financial stakes that allows this to be a superior predictor, ESPECIALLY when the margin of error is relatively large and the odds are near even.

on the other hand, it does reflect a certain vibe when the disparity is great, but does it contradict reasonably constructed polls? that's doubtful.
https://polymarket.com/event/north-carolina-govern...

always remember these are bookmakers, and exist to profit off adjusting money-weighted popularity.

Offshore betting markets like Polymarket mislead voters by substituting right-wing “vibes” for data.

I'm not sure I understand the argument that Polymarket is "misleading" voters - or trying to convince anyone of anything. They're running a betting site. The price for Trump vs. Harris contracts are set, like all prices, wherever the marginal buyer and the marginal seller line up. These aren't the analyses, predictions, or arguments of Polymarket (or any of the other betting sites) about how the site or the company thinks the election will turn out.

Plus....the odds being offered don't seem that far off to me? As of today, the price you get on Polymarket is similar to most of the other betting sites - about 60/40 in favor of Trump. Which seems pretty consistent with polling? Trump has a slight lead in the national polls (RCP average), within the margin of error but a slight lead in every swing state poll average (again RCP), and a history of somewhat outperforming his polling averages (presumably because he appeals to voters who don't regularly vote or participate in polls). So - 60/40 seems about right?

albaby1: I'm not sure I understand the argument that Polymarket is "misleading" voters...

Here's why, as revealed by the Wall Street Journal and others this morning: just four betting accounts in total have swayed the odds from about 50-50 to 62-38 by wagering close to $30 million of crypto over the past two weeks on Trump winning.

Trump’s gains on Polymarket have cheered his supporters, and they have been followed by the odds shifting in Trump’s favor in other betting markets. Elon Musk flagged Trump’s growing lead on Polymarket to his 200 million X followers on Oct. 6, praising the concept of betting markets. “More accurate than polls, as actual money is on the line,” Musk posted.

But the surge might be a mirage manufactured by a group of four Polymarket accounts that have collectively pumped about $30 million of crypto into bets that Trump will win.

“There’s strong reason to believe they are the same entity,” said Miguel Morel, chief executive of Arkham Intelligence, a blockchain analysis firm that examined the accounts.


Elon, Elon, is that you? Or as Dementia Don likes to call him: Leon?

Now before you say, "Well, that's not Polymarket's fault, that's someone taking advantage of how betting markets work," that's a difference without distinction.

And since hclasvegas has brought 538 into the mix this morning, follow the money: Polymarket=Peter Theil=Nate Silver.

It's all part of the same scam to make Trump look like he's surging to influence voters. And one more talking point should Trump lose: "The election was sooooo rigged. Look at how far I was ahead in the betting markets. I won and those bets prove it."

BTW, anyone read the articles this morning that Russia's funding Tucker Carlson and Jordan Peterson?

Oh right, I forgot: Russian influence in U.S. elections isn't actually a real thing, kinda' like foreign betting markets don't influence voters' thinking.


https://www.wsj.com/finance/betting-election-pro-t...

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/a-mystery-...

“ And since hclasvegas has brought 538 into the mix this morning, follow the money: Polymarket=Peter Theil=Nate Silver.“. - good morning common, is the crypto gang buying all the polls too? What if the bettors are following the polls albaby shares? At what point do educated sober liberals admit that for the third time this Dem party is struggling to beat Trump? Are you,Embarrassed yet? The good news is that if Trump wins, both parties get to flush their toilets and reset in 2028. Open competitive primaries, what a concept. ☮️

It's all part of the same scam to make Trump look like he's surging to influence voters. And one more talking point should Trump lose: "The election was sooooo rigged. Look at how far I was ahead in the betting markets. I won and those bets prove it."


My thoughts, too.

And like Trump said crypto is a “scam,” and a “disaster waiting to happen”. So, of course, he embraces it whole-heartedly.

The good news is that if Trump wins, both parties get to flush their toilets and reset in 2028.

What evidence do you have that Trump will willingly step aside in 2028?

He has said he wants to be a dictator. He will likely fill his cabinet and other appointed position with loyalists who will do his bidding no matter what. The USSC has given him wide latitude to ignore the law.

That all leads to Trump being able to remain in power after 2028 if he chooses to do so.

—Peter

“ That all leads to Trump being able to remain in power after 2028 if he chooses to do so.“. Priceless. ☮️

He will likely fill his cabinet and other appointed position with loyalists who will do his bidding no matter what. The USSC has given him wide latitude to ignore the law.

That all leads to Trump being able to remain in power after 2028 if he chooses to do so.

I'm curious...how would that work?

I mean, the federal government doesn't run our elections. So it's mid 2027, and various candidates start making preparations for the 2028 elections, and Trump just...announces there won't be an election next year? Is the idea that all the states would just listen to him, and not hold their normal nominating contests for the Presidency? His cabinet and other appointed positions, whether filled with loyalists or not, don't really have a say in whether those primaries happen or not.

Or suppose he doesn't cancel the elections, but says he's going to run again. Are all the states going to let him, in violation of the Constitution? If they did, when the inevitable court challenges come, would the courts - even the SCOTUS - be willing to go along with that? He lost all his court cases last time, and he's not likely to have too many new allies on the bench than in late 2020.

The fact that the states each run their own elections can be incredibly frustrating at times, but it does present obstacles to the President or the Executive trying to run roughshod over the elections process. Trump has a lot of influence with state election officials, and I don't mean to diminish that - but having a cabinet and federal government filled with lackeys doesn't give him control over the elections process the way it would in most other countries.

That all leads to Trump being able to remain in power after 2028 if he chooses to do so.

He can pass the dynasty on to one of his spawn.

I'm curious...how would that work?

Seems unlikely, and it probably is.

But...I never would have thought he would fire up a violent insurrection and stop at nothing to negate a legitimate election.

But...I never would have thought he would fire up a violent insurrection and stop at nothing to negate a legitimate election.

I mean....he stopped at a lot to negate the election.

He is, after all, not an especially brave or risk-taking person. He always wants other people to put themselves out there and do things on his behalf, more of a "Will no one rid me of this troublesome priest" sort of guy. He's a "hide behind lawyers" sort of person looking for his own Roy Cohn that will do all the nasty stuff for him. Someone who just tells other people in general terms that they should prevent him from having lost the election, without getting his own hands dirty with taking measures on his own or giving direct orders.

Which meant that he was never going to "stop at nothing" to negate a legitimate election. He was never going to go far enough in trying to stay in power that he risked ending up in front of a firing squad (which is what happens to most failed attempts to acquire dictatorial powers) or knowingly facing down a lengthy jail term. He always was going to stop at the point where he could plausibly claim he was "just asking questions" or "just exercising my legal rights" or "just listening to what other people were saying," and never go down the road of ordering the Chairman of the JCOS to roll out the military onto U.S. streets.

I'm curious...how would that work?

Recall the events of January 6, 2021? And the various other attempts to overturn the election leading up to that?

That’s more or less how. Ignore the law and get a sufficient number of loyalists/sycophants to go along with it.

So ignore the two term limit. Declare martial law. Cancel federal elections.

C’mon, Al. You’ve got to believe the odds of that - or something along those lines - are non-zero.

Those non-zero odds are the main reason I am opposed to Trump.

—Peter

Seems unlikely, and it probably is.

Of course it is unlikely. But “unlikely” is way more risk than we should be taking with our democratic republic.

Remember the words of Ben Franklin (or was it some other founder): a republic, if you can keep it.

—Peter

Remember the words of Ben Franklin (or was it some other founder): a republic, if you can keep it.

It was Franklin- perhaps his most repeated words of late…… for good reason.

Sometimes I wonder if Franklin had the remotest clue that his words would come back with such force ~240 years after he spoke them?

I think he’d be gratified. Surprised…… but gratified we’d lasted this long.

Same old arguments he faced, now resurfaced and recast in a new vocabulary.

But it’s the same ole same ole. We fought a Civil War and lost over 600k lives over those lies.

I pray to God we don’t have to do it again.

So ignore the two term limit. Declare martial law. Cancel federal elections.

C’mon, Al. You’ve got to believe the odds of that - or something along those lines - are non-zero.

I believe they're pretty much zero. If Trump had it in him to do that, he would have done it in 2020. He doesn't have it in him. Plus, to pull off a coup like that you need to have some serious juice with the actual military - which Trump does not have, because he isn't a product of the military.

Not only is he personally too lazy, cowardly, uninvolved with the military, and unserious about how government actually works to engage in that type of maneuver, the American system of government presents such serious obstacles to that happening that it wouldn't work. Unlike virtually every other country on earth, the national government doesn't control elections - they're run by the states. To say nothing of the fact that each state is also its own separate sovereign government, not a creation of the national government (like virtually every other administrative regional government) - with their own police powers and their own ability to use force independent of the national government.

And, of course, to pull something like that off you have to convince a lot of people in power that they're better off going along with your coup than not. That can work in countries where there is a very high likelihood that if the opposition party takes control, they will remove you from office and possibly jail or kill you. But in the U.S., none of the Republicans in the House or Senate (or in any federal office) are the least bit worried about their personal position or safety if a Democrat wins the WH. It's just not that kind of country. No one put John Cornyn in jail when Biden won the WH, and he's not going to worry about being put in jail if the GOP loses the 2028 election, either.

There are a lot of reasons I will vote against Donald Trump. Fear of him not stepping down after 2028 is absolutely not one of them, much less a "main reason" I oppose him.

Remember the words of Ben Franklin (or was it some other founder): a republic, if you can keep it.

And Maga will state that we aren't a democracy, we're a republic I respond that a republic is a representative democracy, which makes me bad, so therefore I am wrong.

And Maga will state that we aren't a democracy, we're a republic I respond that a republic is a representative democracy, which makes me bad, so therefore I am wrong.

Pretty much.

Get’s tiresome, doesn’t it?

You: I think the sky is blue.

MAGA: No you don’t. You think the sky is madras. You’ve not said that, but it’s obvious that you do. Therefore, you’re a liar and not to be trusted.

“The weave” really is a thing, apparently- weaving impregnable castles out of bullshit and straw.

I agree. He is a coward and bully. But does he fear taking direct action to subvert government more than he fears prison? Because he is staring at possible prison.

I think he's running again because he fears prison.

But does he fear taking direct action to subvert government more than he fears prison? Because he is staring at possible prison.

Maybe - but by the time we get to 2029, nearly all of that will have resolved. The federal cases will be gone. If Trump wins in 2024, he will certainly have DOJ dismiss all the federal cases and grant himself a pardon of all federal crimes. His state criminal cases will either be done (like NY) or delayed for four years, which will have crippled them. He'll also have had four years to try to get the Georgia state board to give him a full pardon, or for the state legislature to pass something to remove his potential criminal liability.

So in 2029, his odds of going to prison are much lower than they are now (or if he loses in 2024). Certainly much lower if he just steps down than if he tries to convert the US into a dictatorship with Trump as President-for-life. That's an insanely high-risk endeavor, and if it fails he's guaranteed to go to prison for the rest of his life. That's a much bigger risk than he would face in any of his other criminal matters in 2029, so he'd be making matters worse for himself than just stepping down.

If Trump wins in 2024, he will certainly have DOJ dismiss all the federal cases and grant himself a pardon of all federal crimes.

About that. How is dismissing cases against you even legal? Is this really a presidential power/prerogative? Ditto for a self-pardon. Would these actions survive a legal challenge all the way to the Supreme Court?

Maybe - but by the time we get to 2029, nearly all of that will have resolved.

Probably. But we're talking 2024. I think he is running to avoid prison. And if the state charges are pending in 2029, just waiting for him to complete his term, he will be highly motivated to subvert by any means necessary to avoid prison. I also have the same question about him dismissing his own charges and granting himself a pardon. That almost certainly would end up in the SCOTUS (never been done before).

IF he can self-pardon (assuming SCOTUS rules that way), then there is no reason for him not to attempt to abscond with the Oval Office in 2029, because if he fails he can always pardon himself on the way out. No risk at all for him. I'm sure the idea of prison scares the crap out of him.

About that. How is dismissing cases against you even legal? Is this really a presidential power/prerogative? Ditto for a self-pardon. Would these actions survive a legal challenge all the way to the Supreme Court?

Dismissing the cases is pretty straightforward - there's a longstanding DOJ determination that the President can't be prosecuted while in office. It's a basic separation of powers issue. Prosecuting someone involves the Judiciary exercising power over the defendant. If the defendant is the President - the holder of the Executive power - then the Judiciary gets an enormous amount of power over the Executive, and can severely limit how (or even the ability of) the Executive to perform that function. That's not allowed, according to the DOJ's interpretations. It's somewhat supported by how the SCOTUS has analyzed legal cases against sitting Presidents. It's allowed them to move forward, but has taken pains to point out that the things being allowed (subpoenas of records in U.S. v. Nixon, participation in a civil trial in Jones v. Clinton) would not interfere with the President carrying out his duties.

So if Trump becomes President, he now has a Constitutional shield against the Judiciary. He's not above the law, but the law requires that the office he holds has independence from the Legislature and Judiciary to some extent.

So all the federal prosecutions would stop immediately. Trump would certainly make sure that his AG appointment regarded the existing DOJ interpretation as correct - that's going to be a threshold qualification question - and that he would make sure that the federal prosecutions would be withdrawn while Trump was in office. Jack Smith would certainly be relieved of his position. That would de facto end the prosecutions - sure, it's possible that a Democratic President's AG in 2029 might decide to spin those prosecutions up again, even perhaps re-naming Smith, but that seems very unlikely.

As for a self-pardon, the Pardon Power has absolutely no textual limitation or hedge. By its very nature, a pardon allows someone to escape the consequences of a violation of the law, a dispensation to which they have no legal entitlement to. It's based on the sovereign power of monarchs, who as the embodiment of the sovereign state had the unrestricted power to exempt someone from the consequences of a crime - assigning to the President one of the powers of kings.

Which makes it hard to figure out whether that power would extend to a self-pardon. The question doesn't even have meaning in the original context, because the King could never be convicted of a crime in the first place - sovereign immunity puts the King (as head of state) outside of the criminal justice system altogether. Since Kings rule for life, there would never be a situation where the King would have occasion to contemplate pardoning themselves.

Although we can debate whether the Constitutional version of the Pardon Power would have been intended to include or not include a self-pardon, if Trump did pardon himself it would create a legal issue that would certainly add a year or more of pre-trial legal wrangling into a criminal prosecution.

Plus, Trump can easily moot that question. Just schedule a colonscopy, make sure he's sedated, do a formal 25th Amendment notification that Vance will exercise the powers of the office while he's under, and have Vance pardon him as well. Easy peasy, and now there's a backstop that allows the Courts to avoid even reaching the question of whether self-pardons are valid.

I believe they're pretty much zero.

The odds of success, yes. The odds of an attempt are much higher.

And the attempt is the real problem. The damage from even coming close to such an event is going to be profound. Just look at the damage and division caused by Trump’s last attempt at avoiding his loss.

If he loses again this time, I expect nothing less than a repeat performance, with the benefit of lessons learned from the last time.

Worse, should he win and decide that two terms isn’t enough, who is left in the Republican Party to stand up against him? And being a populist, the country will only be further divided by the end of a second term, along with the filling of the highest levels of the executive branch with his loyalists. A second civil war would become a real possibility.

—Peter

But we're talking 2024.

Are we? I thought we were talking about one reason for not voting for him being that if he took office, he wouldn't relinquish it. That's a 2029 issue. I don't think his criminal justice problems provide any material incentive for him to try to stay in office, because the effort to stay in office subjects him to far greater risk of incarceration than simply ceding office at the end of his term.

And if the state charges are pending in 2029, just waiting for him to complete his term, he will be highly motivated to subvert by any means necessary to avoid prison.

Again, by the time we get to 2029, the odds of him going to prison on the GA charges will be substantially lower than the odds that his effort to become President-for-life fails and he certainly goes to prison.

IF he can self-pardon (assuming SCOTUS rules that way), then there is no reason for him not to attempt to abscond with the Oval Office in 2029, because if he fails he can always pardon himself on the way out. No risk at all for him.

Oh, there's plenty of risk for him. If he's elected to the Presidency in 2024, it will be for a term that ends on January 20th, 2029. So for him to "abscond" with the Oval Office in 2029, he's going to have to be doing stuff after January 20th to try to remain in office. By definition - for this to work, he's going to have to be exercising the power of the Executive after January 20th. If he's later found to have done so wrongly, he'll certainly have done some criminal stuff at a time when he didn't lawfully have the power to pardon himself (just like the classified document case).

Worse, should he win and decide that two terms isn’t enough, who is left in the Republican Party to stand up against him?

Almost everyone.

Unlike the 2020 election, most Republican officials don't gain anything if Trump were to be successful in converting the U.S. into a Trump-let dictatorship. Nearly all Republican House members and Senators would have been better off it Trump had won the 2020 election instead of Biden, at least on the surface. They have their offices either way, but they have more power and more influence if the President is a member of their party, rather than the opposition. So they were very tolerant of all of Trump's legal efforts to contest the election, and several were supportive of even the crazy electors gambit.

But letting Trump throw out the entire Constitutional framework of our government and not have an election at all? That's a whole other kettle of fish. Now their power and influence - all of their power and influence - is going to be destroyed. John Cornyn (for example) has a lot of power as an influential Senator, and while he would prefer a Republican President to a Democratic one, he has all that power and influence regardless. It comes from being a powerful Senator. But in a dictatorship, he loses all his power. There's no rules any more, there's no more elections, no more laws - if President-for-life Trump decides he wants someone different to be the senior Senator from Texas, that will happen, and even if it doesn't nobody ever has to listen to him any more.

Unlike 2020, this wouldn't be Trump trying to take power from Biden and the Democrats. This would be Trump taking power from everyone. They have every incentive not to go along with it.

But letting Trump throw out the entire Constitutional framework of our government and not have an election at all?

That’s not at all what I’m talking about. You’re being much too literal. I’m talking about Trump using the familiar trappings of democracy while making himself a dictator. More like modern Russia.

Trump wouldn’t throw out the entire constitution. He’d only throw out the two term limit. He’ll come up with some excuse to ignore it and run again. With his lackeys on the USSC, will they stop him? Even if they do, who will enforce their order if he decides to ignore it? Certainly not his DOJ. Some states would refuse to put him on the ballot. But there is a good chance that enough might put him on to win the electoral college.

He’s certainly popular enough with the MAGA base to be a viable candidate even after ignoring the 22nd amendment.

You’d only need to add a bit of assistance from friendly state officials trying to grab their own bit of power to sway results. We’re already seeing some of that in the upcoming election and the new powers given to local election boards to monkey with elections. (Reference John Oliver a few posts above to refresh your memory on that topic. ) Expand those cases by a factor of two or three during a second Trump term and the potential for anti democratic interference gets larger.

—Peter

Just schedule a colonscopy, make sure he's sedated, do a formal 25th Amendment notification that Vance will exercise the powers of the office while he's under, and have Vance pardon him as well. Easy peasy,

I have little doubt that Vance would do it, but he would at least stop and think twice as it would be the end for his political career. The example of Gerald Ford would surely be brought up by *someone*, I would think.

Thanks Albaby. I guess it makes some sort of sense that a president should be able to dismiss (or at least put on hiatus) outstanding cases against himself, as well as self-pardon (by way of getting the Veep to do it during a short period of 25th amendment incapacity). But it sure is maddening.

the prospect of another 2 terms of trump as president is an existential threat, but so is the damage he can do in another single term.
the big difference is the former is a low probability event we can not worry too much about, while the latter is high probability, near certainty.
(take as an example the small chance of undoing the scotus damage, which has an amplified impact throughout democracy)


this is not the same as saying :
- we know by which path damage will be done. trump's agenda is ad hoc based on his own assessment of personal benefit at the time he actually takes any action.
- trump could certainly try to structure plans to stay in office longer; every strategy that involves minimal risk to his OWN personal resources and freedom is always on the table.

Trump wouldn’t throw out the entire constitution. He’d only throw out the two term limit. He’ll come up with some excuse to ignore it and run again. With his lackeys on the USSC, will they stop him? Even if they do, who will enforce their order if he decides to ignore it? Certainly not his DOJ. Some states would refuse to put him on the ballot. But there is a good chance that enough might put him on to win the electoral college.

Again, he runs into the problem that the federal government doesn't run elections. The states do. For this harebrained scheme to work, he'd need virtually every swing state Division of Elections/Secretary of State to be willing to put him on the primary ballots, despite the 22nd Amendment. It's unlikely beyond reason to think he'd be able to get them all - especially since many of the swing states he'd need to win (Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin in particular) have strong Democratic party presence in state government. Especially since there's lots of other Republicans that want to have a shot to run for President, so no guarantee that Trump gets ballot access in states like Florida or Texas, which are more solidly red but have elected officials (de Santis, Cruz) that are going to want to run in 2028. If either Florida or Texas keeps Trump off the ballot, he's done for.

And then there's the courts, which will certainly keep him off the ballot. Trump lost every 2020 case that made it to SCOTUS, so there's no reason to think they're going to just ignore the 22nd Amendment so he can be dictator. Even if you think they want more conservatives on the court, they didn't do it when the choice was clearly between Trump and a Democrat after the election was over - where ruling against Trump guaranteed a Democrat. They're even less likely to do it when it's Trump trying to ignore the 22nd, when the outcome is just a different GOP nominee.

And finally, even if all this came to pass, he's still likely to lose if he tries to run for a third term in violation of the 22nd Amendment (rather than trying to avoid an election) - which makes it even less likely that he'd get the cooperation of state officials (certain risk, uncertain reward). Trump won the tipping point state in 2016 (Wisconsin) by less than a percentage point - he's unlikely to win whatever 2024 tipping point state by much more than that, should he win. So in late 2027, when elections officials are being asked to put Trump on the ballot in violation of the Constitution and facing a running gun battle in the courts from both Democrats and some well-funded ambitious Republicans, that's a really tough sell. And Trump just isn't that good at cutting deals.

So, no. This is just not going to happen. Trump doesn't have the skills, talent, or connections in the military he would need in order to overcome the massive structural and institutional obstacles and convince all the people he would need. You'd need to be one of the shrewdest, fearless, and most politically adept and skilled operator the country has ever seen in order to do that - and none of those adjectives applies to Trump.

Again, he runs into the problem that the federal government doesn't run elections.

And then there’s the courts, which will certainly keep him off the ballot.


Didn’t a couple states try to keep Trump OFF the ballot in this election? And eventually the USSC said they couldn’t? Or is my memory of recent events faulty?

Didn’t a couple states try to keep Trump OFF the ballot in this election? And eventually the USSC said they couldn’t? Or is my memory of recent events faulty?

Yeah, that's what happened. The SC ruled that states couldn't keep a candidate off the ballot based on a state court finding that the candidate engaged in insurrection.

Didn’t a couple states try to keep Trump OFF the ballot in this election? And eventually the USSC said they couldn’t? Or is my memory of recent events faulty?

Yes, they did - under the Insurrection Clause, which even the liberal wing of the Court felt was sufficiently amenable to differing interpretation that allowing states on their own to decide what actions were, and were not, an "insurrection" would result in an unworkable patchwork of enforcement.

No such ambiguity exists with the 22nd Amendment. There is no possible argument that Trump could run for a third term, should he win in 2024. There isn't a remotely plausible case to make.

The SC ruled…

I’m traveling and didn’t take the time to complete my thought.

While states are in charge of elections in theory, there have been more than one instance where the federal government steps in and dictates what states can and can’t do in elections.

The USSC ruling is just the latest example. There have been multiple voting rights acts over the years.

I have no reason to believe a Trump administration will stay out of the way states run their elections. To the contrary, I would expect a second Trump administration to significantly meddle in the states’ administration of their elections.

I am nowhere as sanguine as albaby in this regard.

—Peter

While states are in charge of elections in theory, there have been more than one instance where the federal government steps in and dictates what states can and can’t do in elections.

Sure. There are limited areas where the federal government does get to pass laws that govern state elections. But we're not in that arena. In this hypothetical, Trump would be asking elections officials to ignore the federal Constitution. And the personnel that run the elections (like state Secretaries of State) aren't part of the federal government, and don't work for Trump. Which makes it much, much harder for a President to try to get elections officials to ignore the law in the U.S. than in almost any other country.

That obstacle is enormous, because you have a collective action problem. No individual Secretary of State can deliver sufficient ballot access - Trump would need probably thirty separate states to ignore the unambiguous language of the 22nd Amendment. So each one of them is being asked to make a career-threatening choice to break the law and violate the Constitution, with no assurance that it will actually work. If all of them don't all independently do it, or Trump loses the election anyway, that means no President Trump in the WH in 2029. Ridiculously hard to pull that off - Trump doesn't have the skill to do it, few in the party have any incentive to do it for him, and all of those folks are savvy enough not to.

Yes, Trump can influence state governments. But while that might translate into getting them to change their drop-box policies or shift how they purge voter rolls (politically charged choices but ultimately legal ones), getting them to tear up the Constitution is a much heavier lift.

And there are much easier, and less risky, ways to get protection from criminal prosecution. Again, he can have Vance pardon him from all his federal crimes. And if he's got so much pull in Georgia that he could get them to let him on the ballot for a third term, then he's got enough pull to just eliminate his criminal jeopardy. Get the Board of Pardons to issue him a pardon. Get the legislature to pass a law that makes his charges go away (laws that reduce criminal liability or punishments are not barred by the Ex Post Facto Clause).

Again, these concerns seem absurd to me. It would be close to impossible for even a savvy and skilled political mastermind to be able to get elected to a third term in the U.S., if any were inclined to give it a go - and Trump is not one of those things. And unlike the 2020 election challenges, most Republicans don't have anywhere near the same incentives to let Trump run for a third term - most Republicans would have been better off with a Republican instead of a Democrat taking office after the 2020 elections, but very few Republicans are themselves better off if Trump gets to run for a third term.

I want Harris to win - but not in the slightest because I fear that Trump won't leave office in 2029. It's because of what he would do between 2025 and 2029.

Post New

US Policy FAQ

---

Contact Shrewd'm
Contact the developer of these message boards.