United States News
See other United States News Articles
Title: Can Hillary Clinton still win? Unlikely, but possible
Source:
WKRN.com
URL Source: http://wkrn.com/2016/11/13/can-hill ... ill-win-unlikely-but-possible/
Published: Nov 13, 2016
Author: staff
Post Date: 2016-11-13 13:15:48 by buckeroo
Keywords: None
Views: 30064
Comments: 84
There’s a petition online with over 3.5 million signatures as of Saturday evening, asking electors of the electoral college to cast their votes for Clinton instead of Donald Trump. The petition’s creator Elijah Berg writes: “If they all vote the way their states voted, Donald Trump will win. However, they can vote for Hillary Clinton if they choose. Even in states where that is not allowed, their vote would still be counted, they would simply pay a small fine – which we can be sure Clinton supporters will be glad to pay!” There is another petition online with about 1,000 signatures as of Saturday evening, urging the electoral college to confirm Trump as the president. The petition’s creator writes: “The Electoral system is the system that allows every state to make their vote heard. Without it; the populous dense, liberal, inner cities would decide the election every year. That’s not democracy, that’s a farce.” The votes have been counted here in Ohio and Trump is the winner. It’s been a bitter pill for some to swallow and that’s why millions are urging state electors to change their minds when they meet in December to cast their votes. But, an expert from the Ohio State University says don’t hold your breath. Political science professor emeritus Paul Beck says while electors can choose to ignore how their state voted and instead vote for Clinton, it is very unlikely that they would. He says even if one or two electors went “rogue” it wouldn’t be enough to change the results. “Could one or two of them not vote for Trump? I think that’s always possible,” he says. “I think it’s not likely and they would suffer the consequences of that, particularly if it changed the outcome of the election.” Beck says electors will meet in their state capitols on December 19th and cast their votes. Right now, Trump is the projected winner with 290 electoral votes and Clinton with 228. He says electors are not compelled to pick a particular candidate, but they are carefully chosen by the political parties and are usually already committed to voting a certain way. “Every once in a while, maybe in a state like Ohio where some of the party leadership was not supporting Trump there could be somebody that goes rogue, but I really doubt that is going to happen and you don’t want to be in a position that you’re changing the result of an election by your single vote,” he says. However, Beck says there is still a legitimate question on why the electoral college is the determining institution for the election rather than the popular vote. “I don’t expect it to change in the future. It would require individual states that have small numbers of electoral votes to be able to go to the popular vote and they’re not going to want to do that. It dilutes the kind of influence that they have,” he says. “I think it is antiquated. It was a deal that was cut back in 1787. It was the price among other deals or compromises. It was the price we paid for our Constitution. On the other hand, changing it is difficult.” For now, Beck says his best advice is to accept that the contest is over and watch for the announcement of cabinet positions. “We need to deal with that,” he says. “There will be a new administration in Washington. We need to keep an eye, of course, on what they do.” Registered voters cast their votes for President and Vice President. By doing so, they also help choose the electors who will represent their state in the Electoral College. Mid-November through December 19, 2016 After the presidential election, the governor of your state prepares seven Certificates of Ascertainment. “As soon as practicable,” after the election results in your state are certified, the governor sends one of the Certificates of Ascertainment to the Archivist. Certificates of Ascertainment should be sent to the Archivist no later than the meeting of the electors in December. However, federal law sets no penalty for missing the deadline. The remaining six Certificates of Ascertainment are held for use at the meeting of the Electors in December. December 13, 2016 States must make final decisions in any controversies over the appointment of their electors at least six days before the meeting of the Electors. This is so their electoral votes will be presumed valid when presented to Congress. Decisions by states’ courts are conclusive, if decided under laws enacted before Election Day. December 19, 2016 The Electors meet in their state and vote for President and Vice President on separate ballots. The electors record their votes on six “Certificates of Vote,” which are paired with the six remaining Certificates of Ascertainment. The electors sign, seal, and certify six sets of electoral votes. A set of electoral votes consists of one Certificate of Ascertainment and one Certificate of Vote. These are distributed immediately as follows: one set to the President of the Senate (the Vice President) for the official count of the electoral votes in January; two packages to the Secretary of State in the state where the electors met—one is an archival set that becomes part of the public record of the Secretary of State's office and the other is a reserve set that is subject to the call of the President of the Senate to replace missing or incomplete electoral votes; two packages to the Archivist—one is an archival set that becomes part of the permanent collection at the National Archives and Records Administration and the other is a reserve set that is subject to the call of the President of the Senate to replace missing or incomplete electoral votes; and one set to the presiding judge in the district where the Electors met—this is also a reserve set that is subject to the call of the President of the Senate to replace missing or incomplete electoral votes. December 28, 2016 Electoral votes (the Certificates of Vote) must be received by the President of the Senate and the Archivist no later than nine days after the meeting of the electors. States face no legal penalty for failure to comply. If votes are lost or delayed, the Archivist may take extraordinary measures to retrieve duplicate originals. On or Before January 3, 2017 The Archivist and/or representatives from the Office of the Federal Register meet with the Secretary of the Senate and the Clerk of the House in late December or early January. This is, in part, a ceremonial occasion. Informal meetings may take place earlier. January 6, 2017 The Congress meets in joint session to count the electoral votes. Congress may pass a law to change this date. The Vice President, as President of the Senate, presides over the count and announces the results of the Electoral College vote. The President of the Senate then declares which persons, if any, have been elected President and Vice President of the United States. If a State submits conflicting sets of electoral votes to Congress, the two Houses acting concurrently may accept or reject the votes. If they do not concur, the votes of the electors certified by the Governor of the State on the Certificate of Ascertainment would be counted in Congress. If no Presidential candidate wins 270 or more electoral votes, a majority, the 12th Amendment to the Constitution provides for the House of Representatives to decide the Presidential election. If necessary the House would elect the President by majority vote, choosing from the three candidates who received the greatest number of electoral votes. The vote would be taken by state, with each state having one vote. If no Vice Presidential candidate wins 270 or more electoral votes, a majority, the 12th Amendment provides for the Senate to elect the Vice President. If necessary, the Senate would elect the Vice President by majority vote, choosing from the two candidates who received the greatest number of electoral votes. The vote would be taken by state, with each Senator having one vote. If any objections to the Electoral College vote are made, they must be submitted in writing and be signed by at least one member of the House and one Senator. If objections are presented, the House and Senate withdraw to their respective chambers to consider their merits under procedures set out in federal law. January 20, 2017 at Noon—Inauguration Day The President-elect takes the Oath of Office and becomes the President of the United States.COLUMBUS, Ohio (WCMH) – Is there still a chance Hillary Clinton could win the presidency? Technically, yes.
I recommend that you fine folks re-cork your bottles of champaigne. Here are the key dates: November 8, 2016—Election Day
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: buckeroo (#0)
When that petition reaches 60 million I'll comment on it.
You missed the point. The Electoral College controls the ascension of the next President and that process continues for the next month and half. Any of the state electors can change their vote and even vote for my dead dawg Scruffy.
If they did that there would be civil war.
What is wrong with that? We are due for an internal, blood-letting war, anyway. As TJ suggested:
If the election was decided by 10 or fewer EC votes, sure there is potential. The 2000 election was closer with the SCOTUS involved. No one jumped ship and only one Gore elector handed in a blank ballot.
I would estimate close to 80% of the people signing that petition have never actually read our Constitution. Hopefully through all this nonsense they get a civics lesson.
I understand. But why would they pay more attention to a petition with a measley 3.5 million signatures over an election with 306 electoral votes?
Poppy's ready to start his second term, with Scruffy as VP. LOL
Soros is close to the Democratic political platform, correct? He is even paying for some of these demonstrations around the nation. What makes you think he won't further pay some money to sympathetic electors, say a million bucks each, to switch their votes? That's just a quarter of a billion bucks paid out to Democrats.
So, the switch is already planned?
You first, buckie.
However, if your are holding out hope there will be enough Faithless Electors to keep Trump from taking office in January, then you are moving “from the sublime to the ridiculous.” Since you brought up this subject, how many Faithless Elector members of the Electoral College changed their vote from their party's designated candidate during the past 100 years?
I am ready, randge. But it is not to initiate FORCE but to defend my life, family and property. And, by God, I will defend that which I believe is important to those around me.
Fair enough, buckeroo. But I we aren't there by a long shot yet. If anything, the folks have voted, and they have voted out the Bush-Clinton- Obama axis which was ever spook-driven, war-driven, and globalism driven. It is yet to be seen if we get what many of us have voted for.
Yep, you and Ole Don….the dynamic duo.
Why do you ask a question, like that? Don't you know how STUPID you look when viewing history for a sense of today's problems/solutions? What is going on: America has no constitutional anchors anymore within its own government.
Why do you ask a question, like that? Don't you know how STUPID you look when viewing history for a sense of today's problems/solutions? What is going on: America has no constitutional anchors anymore within its own government. I ask simply because the answer will point out how fruitless your bleak hope that Trump will not take office is. Don’t you know how UTTERLY STUPID you look hoping there is a possibility of Trump not assuming office? When viewing today’s problems/solutions….Americans have spoken. They have affirmed that they want Trump. And so now, it is trump they will have. BTW, I’ll answer the question for you. There were ONLY 9 Faithless Elector members of the Electoral College who changed their vote from their party's designated candidate during the past 100 years? Here are the names, dates, and stories of the 9 “faithless votes” during the last 100 years: 2. 2000 - Barbara Lett-Simmons (Democrat, District of Columbia) 3. 1988 - Margaret Leach (Democrat, West Virginia) 4. 1976 - Mike Padden (Republican, Washington) 5. 1972 - Roger L. MacBride (Republican, Virginia) 6. 1968 - Dr. Lloyd W. Bailey (Republican, North Carolina) 7. 1960 - Henry D. Irwin (Republican, Oklahoma) 8. 1956 - W. F. Turner (Democrat, Alabama) 9. 1948 - Preston Parks (Democrat, Tennessee)
You deliver weak unimportant supporting dialogue. Soros likes you; he loves you to forget about internal strife in the form of the MSM still maintaining riots all around the nation to include what you see NOW. You really think that electors aren't persuaded about massive and violent influences on their own votes? If so, you are a loser, suckin' yukon's ass.
Zing!
Bucky, that’s as “funny as shit” coming from you….weak dialogue, LMAO. You even bringing up Faithless Electors as a possible way to keep Trump from assuming office is the ULTIMATE WEAKNESS. Give it up….YOU LOST….asshole!
Yea, Bucky, I really think there will not be enough Faithless Electors to throw the election to Hillary. I also really think you are stupid enough to believe it can happen. Give it up….YOU LOST….asshole!
So, you are akin to this misfit lyin' guy/gal, called "interpreter" that sez he/she has a crystal ball on LF. Way too much phun for me, pal.
How do you measure your statement? Because you say so?
Way too much phun for me, pal. "You deliver weak unimportant supporting dialogue." Yea, loads of fun!!!
How do you measure your statement? Because you say so? That's the BEST way.
I guarantee, that in 2017, I am going to show you why pensioners on a $300 bucks a month guaranteed income, are just useless grifters that were/are worthless to ANYONE muchless to the USA. All you ever accomplished in life was skin a tater, tater.
Nope, not a potato skinner….but:
The only BEST WAY you know is gettin' your jollies off with yukon.
You ae so full of shit....you cannot "guarantee" anything.
... is kicking your ass on LF. And I do enjoy doing that ...
ROTFL ... you are reflecting on your butt buddy, "yukon." You claimed I stole his "password" which was nothing less than you creating a silly rumour.
LOL
I would hope so,anyhow. BOYCOTT PAYPAL AND CLOSE YOUR PP ACCOUNTS NOW! ENCOURAGE OTHERS TO DO SO,TOO! ISLAM MEANS SUBMISSION! Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012) American Indians had open borders. Look at how well that worked out for them.
I would almost be willing to bet 99 percent of them actually think America is Democracy. BOYCOTT PAYPAL AND CLOSE YOUR PP ACCOUNTS NOW! ENCOURAGE OTHERS TO DO SO,TOO! ISLAM MEANS SUBMISSION! Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012) American Indians had open borders. Look at how well that worked out for them.
There is a upside down ticket if I ever heard of one. BOYCOTT PAYPAL AND CLOSE YOUR PP ACCOUNTS NOW! ENCOURAGE OTHERS TO DO SO,TOO! ISLAM MEANS SUBMISSION! Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012) American Indians had open borders. Look at how well that worked out for them.
Enough to get JFK the Dim nomination. Ok,they were delegates and not Electors,but the principle is the same. BOYCOTT PAYPAL AND CLOSE YOUR PP ACCOUNTS NOW! ENCOURAGE OTHERS TO DO SO,TOO! ISLAM MEANS SUBMISSION! Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012) American Indians had open borders. Look at how well that worked out for them.
Enough to get JFK the Dim nomination. During the Democratic Convention in 1960 Kennedy was nominated on the first ballot, he overwhelmed Johnson by 806 to 409. I don’t understand what you mean when you say enough delegates to the Dim convention changed their votes to get JFK the Dim nomination?
Post your hopes and libtard dreams ELSEWHERE, suckhole. She's TOAST. I'm the infidel... Allah warned you about. كافر المسلح
You must be one DUMB motherfucker to make assumptions like that.
She's TOAST. You must be one DUMB motherfucker to make assumptions like that. You, of all people, are calling someone a dumb motherfucker when you are calling specific directions...."assumptions?" ROTFLMAO ...
If you STUPID fucks think that TRUMP will fix things OR do things to your liking, you are just smokin' the crackpipe.
He's already done more things BEFORE he became president than O'bunghole has done in 8 years as president, he's feeding the cops that are working the protests. It's about time we have a president that will support LE... unlike Obozo and you filthy fucking PAULTARDs.
I'm the infidel... Allah warned you about. كافر المسلح
BIG fuckin' deal. Once he saddles up and is in office, he will change like all Presidents before him. He will become absorbed into the bureacracy forever, speaking for meaningless, do-nothing, phantastick bobble-heads. He won't lead us anywhere but off the cliff.
He has ALREADY started....the first two people he selected to work for him in the WH has my FULL approval!
And?
You cannot face reality....Trump has already started. The wheels of change for improvement were set into motion the day he announced his candicacy.
And there will be more.
You finally got something right....Trump's presidency is A BIG FUCKIN' DEAL!
Get off the crackpipe NOW! Just because Trump sez "dis or dat" doesn't mean anything. Just because Trump shifts a few people into his cabinet also, doesn't mean anything. You have to quit taking your political pills and quit smokin' the crackpipe.
Trump is on a roll....get outta the way or your drug savaged body will get run over.
Trump can't perform 90% of his campaign promises. You didn't just take his "pill," you snorted it.
Your prognostications have an extremely bad record of being proben wrong....no reason to believe yours will not be wrong againthis time.
America has been on a downhill slope since WW2. That isn't a "prognostication" it is simply examining history. Trump's, "Make America GREAT again" slogan can only work if America goes into WW3, similar to WW2 which was the zenith of American wealth and greatness. The model can not be changed.
He'd have to pay off 38 electors. What are the odds he could do that without being caught and sentenced to prison?
You tell me. What were the odds that a US Secretary of State could sell her position to foreign governments while collecting millions of dollars for her, "foundation?"
This is true.
She did it and got away with it.
I don't think she did. The FBI has a team in Little Rock, Arkansas investigating her "foundation" right now. Strangely, the team was initiated on November 8th, 2016 .... otherwise known as "election day."
You are right, that isn’t a "prognostication" it is your personal biased bullshit opinion. Instead of trying to simply examine history through the eyes of Buckeroo….let’s see what a polling sample of Americans feel. Oh, I just happen to have one available. Donald Trump has made “Make America Great Again!” his campaign slogan, so we wanted to know just when his supporters — and all Americans for that matter — thought their country was at its greatest. A survey from the digital media and polling company Morning Consult asked a sample of Americans for their take on the greatest year. The survey found that, across all demographic groups, the year 2000 was the most popular choice for the greatest. Republicans tended to pick years in the 1950s and 1980s. Democrats tended to pick years in the 1990s, or close to today. http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/30/upshot/readers-pick-americas- greatest-year.html?_r=0.
tater - using the NYTimes as a reference to substantiate any of your BS is proof positive that you are one stupid asshole. Speaking of assholes, have you kissed yukon's ass today?
Bucky, you have such biased preformed opinions that you wouldn’t believe anything even if it were written on two tablets on Mount Sinai. You are such a dumb shit. I have never believed in abortion, but I would have given it some serious thought in your case.
Source?
Oh no! Isn't your example, above, considered a myth or a faeble from a bunch of sheep herders?
Why should I source anything for you, tater? Don't you have capability to LQQK for data on your own, using your whiz wand on your 'puter?
Because you lie and just make things up....like you did this time. So, I will just chalk this off as ANOTHER of your lies.
Congress still has to certify the election results on January 6, 2017 . U.S. Code, Title 3, Chapter 1, Article 15; the U.S. Congress meets to approve the Electoral College vote. Evita would need too many faithless electors .Only 31 states allow electors to go faithless without penalty . In bridge, you have wild cards called trump cards. The trump cards are really wild because they change from hand to hand, depending on the bidding.
How much of your $300 bucks a month "government welfare" can you spare on a wager?
So, you agree there is a possibility. Not much more to say.
I have caught you lying, so there is no way I will trust you to pay off a wager.
Please don't quibble. How much do you want to wager AGAINST my earlier statement that the FBI is investigating the Clinton Foundation and that it was initiated on or near November 8, 2016? Got bucks? I do. The loser of the wager donates to Stone's website maintenance budget. buckeroo
So, you agree there is a possibility. Not much more to say. Oh, but there is lots more to say when you consider possibility versus probability. Just because something is possible does not mean that it is very probable. There is a possibility you can win the lottery, but the probability is extremely low and if you don’t buy a ticket….it will not happen. There is a possibility that enough faithless electors can change the election results, but if not one of them is considering doing that or have said they will do that….then it will not happen. Research finds that electors on the losing side are more likely to consider defecting, which does not bode well for those looking to oust Trump. Sorry, Buckoo, but blocking Trump in Electoral College is mission impossible.
I said I have PROVEN you to be a liar, right here on LF. Therefore, I will not wager with a LIAR. The article on the probe dated November 8, 2016, states: It does not state starting/beginning on November 8, 2016 ..
You are full of shit, as always. As I said, there is a possibility and not a probability of any constitutional issue. Why don't you go out back and shank some potatoe skins to dust off your delirium tremens?
I stated the investigation was initiated in Little Rock, Arkansas on November 8 2016. Now, you want to puke all over it because you sat back drinkin' your moonshine again. OK, don't wager with me. I could give a rat's ass.
By the Way, the FBI Was Investigating the Clinton Foundation Too By Margaret Hartmann [excerpt] It appears the probe was in its preliminary stages, and while some at the FBI wanted to launch a more robust investigation into allegations that the charity provided improper favors or political access to donors, the Justice Department’s public integrity unit said there was not enough evidence to move forward with the case. “We are not aware of any investigation into the Foundation by the Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation, or any United States Attorney’s Office and we have not received a subpoena from any of those agencies,” the Clinton Foundation told the Washington Post on Sunday. However, according to the Journal, FBI field offices in New York, Los Angeles, Washington, D.C., and Little Rock have been collecting information on the charity for more than a year. The New York office did the most work on the case, with help from Little Rock. The L.A. office picked up information about the foundation in an unrelated public-corruption case, and D.C. was looking at the charity as part of its ongoing investigation into Virginia governor Terry McAuliffe, who is a former Clinton Foundation board member. FBI officials presented their findings to the Justice Department in February, seeking approval to step up their investigation. Per the Foundation: Some said that is because the FBI didn’t present compelling evidence to justify more aggressive pursuit of the Clinton Foundation, and that the career anticorruption prosecutors in the room simply believed it wasn’t a very strong case. Others said that from the start, the Justice Department officials were stern, icy and dismissive of the case. “That was one of the weirdest meetings I’ve ever been to,” one participant told others afterward, according to people familiar with the matter. FBI agents continued probing the foundation using methods that did not require Justice Department approval. A source says that when a Justice Department official caught wind of this, he complained to Andrew McCabe, the bureau’s second-in-command. McCabe pushed back, and some say that after the call he reiterated his instructions for FBI agents to continue looking into the foundation. However, some lower-level FBI operatives claim they were instructed to “stand down.”
You better believe it. The fix is in.
I don't wager with LIARS.
Delegates that were pledged to vote for other candidates were instead convinced to vote for him to get the Dim nomination. BOYCOTT PAYPAL AND CLOSE YOUR PP ACCOUNTS NOW! ENCOURAGE OTHERS TO DO SO,TOO! ISLAM MEANS SUBMISSION! Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012) American Indians had open borders. Look at how well that worked out for them.
Of course you won't wager with me. It is not that I am a liar; it is because you already know that YOU are a LOSER.
I don't wager with a proven LIAR.
Proof? Where is the substantive support this tyme, tater? With the tooth faerie?
Proof? Proof ofwhat....that I don't wager with a proven LIAR, or proof that you are a proven LIAR?
"There’s a petition online with over 3.5 million signatures as of Saturday evening, asking electors of the electoral college to cast their votes for Clinton instead of Donald Trump."
#2. To: misterwhite (#1)
#3. To: buckeroo (#2)
#4. To: A K A Stone (#3)
The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.
#5. To: buckeroo (#2)
#6. To: A K A Stone (#3)
#7. To: buckeroo (#2)
"The Electoral College controls the ascension of the next President and that process continues for the next month and half."
#8. To: buckeroo, *2016 The Likely Suspects* (#4)
Castle(C), Stein(G), Johnson(L)
#9. To: hondo68 (#8)
#10. To: misterwhite (#7)
#11. To: hondo68 (#8)
Poppy's ready to start his second term, with Scruffy as VP.
#12. To: buckeroo (#0)
#13. To: buckeroo (#4)
The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.
#14. To: buckeroo, misterwhite, A K A Stone (#2)
The Electoral College controls the ascension of the next President and that process continues for the next month and half. Any of the state electors can change their vote …
That’s true.
#15. To: randge (#13)
#16. To: buckeroo (#15)
#17. To: buckeroo (#15)
And, by God, I will defend that which I believe is important to those around me.
#18. To: Gatlin (#14)
... [H]ow many Faithless Elector members of the Electoral College changed their vote from their party's designated candidate during the past 100 years?
#19. To: buckeroo (#18)
... [H]ow many Faithless Elector members of the Electoral College changed their vote from their party's designated candidate during the past 100 years?
1. 2004 - Anonymous (Democrat, Minnesota)
Hey, Bucky, here’s a message for you:
An unknown elector from Minnesota, pledged to vote for Democrat John Kerry, cast a presidential vote instead for Kerry’s running mate John Edwards (the elector also cast his or her vice presidential vote for Edwards). One Minnesota elector, who believed the Edwards vote must have been a mistake, said, "I'm certainly glad the Electoral College isn't separated by one vote."
Barbara Lett-Simmons, a Democratic elector from the District of Columbia, did not cast her vote in order to protest the lack of congressional representation for Washington, DC. Lett-Simmons was the first elector to abstain from voting since 1832. Her abstention did not affect the outcome of the election.
Margaret Leach, a nurse from Huntington, WV, was pledged to the Democratic Party. During the Electoral College process, Leach learned that members of the Electoral College were not required to vote for the candidates to whom they were pledged, whereupon she decided to draw more attention to the situation by switching her votes for president and vice president. She cast her presidential vote for Lloyd Bentsen, the Democratic Vice Presidential candidate, and cast her vice presidential vote for Michael Dukakis, the Democratic presidential candidate. Leach tried to get other electors to join her, but hers remained the only unexpected vote.
Mike Padden, a lawyer from Spokane, WA, was pledged to vote for Gerald Ford, the 1976 Republican candidate for president. Instead Padden voted for Ronald Reagan, who had run in the Republican primary and lost. For vice president he voted for Robert Dole, Gerald Ford's running mate.
Roger L. MacBride was pledged to the Republican party of Virginia. However, in the 1972 election, MacBride did not cast his electoral vote for Richard Nixon, the Republican presidential candidate, but for John Hospers, the Libertarian presidential candidate. He also cast his vice presidential vote for Toni Nathan, the Libertarian vice presidential candidate, (making Nathan the first woman to receive an electoral vote). MacBride ran as the Libertarian candidate for president in the next election but did not receive any electoral votes.
Dr. Lloyd W. Bailey was an elector for the Republican Party of North Carolina. He did not vote for Richard Nixon however, but for George Wallace, the presidential candidate for the American Independence Party. (Wallace received a total of 46 electoral votes). Bailey claimed that Nixon had done some things that displeased him (like appointing Henry Kissinger and Daniel Moynihan) and so he decided not to vote for him. He also protested that he had never signed a pledge promising to vote for any particular candidate and that his vote for Wallace was justified because Wallace was the winner in Bailey’s district. Bailey later admitted at a Senate hearing that he would have voted for Richard Nixon if his vote would have altered the outcome of the election.
Henry D. Irwin, a Republican elector from Oklahoma, was originally pledged to Richard Nixon. Irwin later admitted in an interview with CBS that he "could not stomach" Nixon. He tried to convince the Democratic and Republican electors to reject both Kennedy and Nixon as presidential candidates. His choice replacement was a combination of two conservative senators: Harry F. Byrd of Virginia and Barry Goldwater of Arizona. In fact, he sent out telegrams to the other electors. One telegram sent to the 218 Republican electors read: "I am Oklahoma Republican elector. The Republican electors cannot deny the election to Kennedy. Sufficient conservative Democratic electors available to deny labor Socialist nominee. Would you consider Byrd President, Goldwater Vice President, or wire any acceptable substitute. All replies strict confidence." Irwin received several replies (about 40) from other electors but he was the only one to vote against his designated party. He cast his electoral votes for Byrd and Goldwater. In the same election 14 unpledged electors (eight from Mississippi and six from Alabama) cast their presidential votes for Harry Byrd. All 14 also voted for Senator Strom Thurmond of South Carolina as vice president.
W.F. Turner, a Democratic elector from Alabama, voted for Walter Burgwyn Jones instead of the Democratic candidate Adlai Stevenson. Jones was formerly a circuit court judge from Turner’s hometown.
Preston Parks was a member of Tennessee’s Democratic Party. He was appointed as one of their state electors early in the election year. Before the election, members of the Democratic Party split off and formed the States Rights party. Parks vowed before the election to vote for Senator Strom Thurmond, the States Rights Party candidate instead of Harry Truman. Another elector also made the same pledge but ended up voting for Truman. Thurmond, who gathered less than 3% of the popular vote, received a total of 39 electoral votes. These votes came from Louisiana, Alabama, Mississippi, and South Carolina.
#20. To: Gatlin (#19)
(Edited)
#21. To: randge (#13)
You first, buckie.
#22. To: buckeroo (#20)
You deliver weak unimportant supporting dialogue.
#23. To: buckeroo (#20)
(Edited)
You really think that electors aren't persuaded about massive and violent influences on their own votes?
#24. To: Gatlin, interpreter (#22)
#25. To: Gatlin (#23)
YOU LOST
#26. To: buckeroo (#24)
So, you are akin to this misfit lyin' guy/gal, called "interpreter" that sez he/she has a crystal ball on LF.
#27. To: buckeroo (#25)
YOU LOST
#28. To: Gatlin (#26)
#29. To: buckeroo (#28)
All you ever accomplished in life was skin a tater, tater.
#30. To: Gatlin (#27)
#31. To: buckeroo (#28)
I guarantee, that in 2017, I am going to show you ...
#32. To: buckeroo (#30)
The only BEST WAY ...
#33. To: Gatlin (#31)
#34. To: Gatlin (#32)
kicking your ass
#35. To: A K A Stone, buckaroo (#3)
If they did that there would be civil war.
#36. To: redleghunter (#6)
I would estimate close to 80% of the people signing that petition have never actually read our Constitution. Hopefully through all this nonsense they get a civics lesson.
#37. To: hondo68 (#8)
Poppy's ready to start his second term, with Scruffy as VP.
#38. To: Gatlin (#14)
how many Faithless Elector members of the Electoral College changed their vote from their party's designated candidate during the past 100 years?
#39. To: sneakypete (#38)
(Edited)
how many Faithless Elector members of the Electoral College changed their vote from their party's designated candidate during the past 100 years?
During a series of Democratic primary elections and caucuses in 1960, JFK won the primary with 1,847,259 votes or 31.4%.
Ok,they were delegates and not Electors,but the principle is the same.
#40. To: buckeroo (#0)
#41. To: GrandIsland (#40)
#42. To: buckeroo, GrandIsland (#41)
Post your hopes and libtard dreams ELSEWHERE, suckhole.
#43. To: Gatlin, GrandIsland (#42)
#44. To: buckeroo (#43)
#45. To: GrandIsland (#44)
#46. To: buckeroo (#43)
If you STUPID fucks think that TRUMP will fix things OR do things to your liking,
#47. To: Gatlin (#46)
#48. To: buckeroo (#45)
#49. To: buckeroo (#47)
And?
#50. To: buckeroo (#45)
BIG fuckin' deal.
#51. To: Gatlin (#48)
#52. To: buckeroo (#51)
#53. To: Gatlin (#52)
#54. To: buckeroo (#53)
Trump can't perform 90% of his campaign promises.
#55. To: Gatlin (#54)
#56. To: buckeroo (#10)
"What makes you think he won't further pay some money to sympathetic electors"
#57. To: misterwhite (#56)
#58. To: buckeroo (#55)
America has been on a downhill slope since WW2.
#59. To: buckeroo (#57)
You tell me. What were the odds that a US Secretary of State could sell her position to foreign governments while collecting millions of dollars for her, "foundation?"
#60. To: rlk (#59)
She did it and got away with it.
#61. To: buckeroo (#55)
America has been on a downhill slope since WW2. That isn't a "prognostication" it is simply examining history.
#62. To: Gatlin (#61)
#63. To: buckeroo (#62)
tater - using the NYTimes as a reference to substantiate any of your BS is proof positive that you are one stupid asshole.
#64. To: buckeroo (#60)
Strangely, the team was initiated on November 8th, 2016 .... otherwise known as "election day."
#65. To: Gatlin (#63)
... you wouldn’t believe anything even if it were written on two tablets on Mount Sinai.
#66. To: Gatlin (#64)
Source?
#67. To: buckeroo (#66)
Why should I source anything for you, tater?
#68. To: buckeroo (#0)
#69. To: Gatlin (#67)
#70. To: tomder55 (#68)
Evita would need too many faithless electors .Only 31 states allow electors to go faithless without penalty .
#71. To: buckeroo (#69)
#72. To: Gatlin, A K A Stone (#71)
#73. To: buckeroo, tomder55 (#70)
Evita would need too many faithless electors .Only 31 states allow electors to go faithless without penalty .
#74. To: buckeroo (#72)
(Edited)
FBI agents across the country are continuing to actively pursue a broad political corruption investigation of the Clinton Foundation, ...
#75. To: Gatlin (#73)
#76. To: Gatlin (#74)
#77. To: Gatlin, buckeroo (#74)
New Yorker
October 31, 2016 4:07 a.m. Fourteen paragraphs into a report on the internal feuding between the FBI and the Justice Department over the Clinton email probe, The Wall Street Journal mentions that the bureau has been investigating the Clinton Foundation.
By all accounts, the meeting didn’t go well.
#78. To: nolu chan (#77)
However, some lower-level FBI operatives claim they were instructed to “stand down.”
#79. To: buckeroo (#76)
OK, don't wager with me. I could give a rat's ass.
#80. To: Gatlin (#39)
I don’t understand what you mean when you say enough delegates to the Dim convention changed their votes to get JFK the Dim nomination?
#81. To: Gatlin (#79)
I don't wager with LIARS.
#82. To: buckeroo (#81)
#83. To: Gatlin (#82)
(Edited)
#84. To: buckeroo (#83)
I don't wager with a proven LIAR.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]