Counterpoints...

Post #440,301 by Another Scott 11/11/21 11:57:55 AM 11/11/21 11:57:55 AM Reply	Counterpoints... There has been only one President who served non-consecutive terms - Grover Cleveland (1885-1889, 1893-1897). Wikipedia: The 1892 United States presidential election was the 27th quadrennial presidential election, held on Tuesday, November 8, 1892. In a rematch of the closely contested 1888 presidential election, former Democratic President Grover Cleveland defeated incumbent Republican President Benjamin Harrison. Cleveland's victory made him the first and to date only person in American history to be elected to a non-consecutive second presidential term. It was also the first time incumbents were defeated in consecutive elections—the second being Jimmy Carter's defeat of Gerald Ford in 1976, followed by Carter's subsequent loss to Ronald Reagan in 1980.[2] Additionally, Harrison's loss marked the second time an elected president lost the popular vote twice, the first being John Quincy Adams in the 1820s. This feat was not repeated until Donald Trump lost the popular vote in 2016 and 2020.[3] Incumbents usually get re-elected. The fact that T didn't is a bad sign for him in trying again. The economy should be doing very, very well in 2024 (COVID under control world-wide, transition to greener production, not spending hundreds of billions in forever wars of occupation, etc.). A good economy helps incumbents. Of course, nobody knows the future, and the GQP is trying to change the rules so that he has an easier time, but history says it's not going to happen. Cheers, Scott.
Post #440,302 by malraux 11/11/21 1:34:33 PM 11/11/21 1:34:33 PM Reply	2022 is going to be a rough mid-term election though. And the resulting power balance shift probably won't spell good news for Biden. Regards, -scott Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson.
Post #440,304 by drook 11/11/21 2:55:33 PM 11/11/21 2:55:33 PM Reply	Specifically, the power to certify state results -- Drew
Post #440,306 by Another Scott 11/11/21 6:51:01 PM 11/11/21 6:51:01 PM Reply	I continue to think that that's not a slam-dunk. "Equal Protection" and Article IV Section 4: At its core, the Guarantee Clause provides for majority rule. A republican government is one in which the people govern through elections. This is the constant refrain of the Federalist Papers. Alexander Hamilton, for example, put it this way in The Federalist No. 57: “The elective mode of obtaining rulers is the characteristic policy of republican government.” Thus, the Guarantee Clause imposes limitations on the type of government a state may have. The Clause requires the United States to prevent any state from imposing rule by monarchy, dictatorship, aristocracy, or permanent military rule, even through majority vote. Instead, governing by electoral processes is constitutionally required. Of course, lawyers are paid to be able to argue every side of every issue. But I find it hard to believe that the courts will let the GQP simply nullify election results. If it were that easy, it would have been done already. Our job as voters is to make sure that the results aren't close enough to steal... Cheers, Scott.
Post #440,309 by CRConrad 11/12/21 3:33:11 AM 11/12/21 3:33:11 AM Reply	But Teddy came close, didn't he? (No, not Kennedy.)

Welcome to IWETHEY!