Reagan Posted June 29 Report Posted June 29 From Charlie Kirk On X: "This is big. It's likely already too late to remove Joe Biden from the ballot. WISCONSIN — It's already too late to remove Joe Biden from the ballot. NEVADA—After tonight, the fourth Friday in June, it will be too late to remove Joe Biden. GEORGIA—Only a few weeks remain before it will be too late to remove Biden from the ballot. From DailyMail: The Heritage Oversight project has set their sights on three contentious swing states where they believe taking Biden off the Democratic ticket would not allow anyone else to replace him: Georgia, Nevada and Wisconsin. Wisconsin does not allow withdrawal from the ballot for any reason besides death. In Nevada, no changes can be made to the ballot after 5 p.m. on the fourth Friday in June of an election year or 'a nominee dies or is adjudicated insane or mentally incompetent.' If Biden were to withdraw less than 60 days before the election Georgia his name will remain on the ballot but no votes will be counted. In Texas, the two party's nominees have until the 74th day before the election to withdraw from the ballot. Some states, like South Carolina, do not allow candidates to withdraw for political reasons." Interesting! Thoughts?! Quote
tvc184 Posted June 29 Report Posted June 29 Thoughts… Nonsense and taken way out of context. There are ballot deadlines but this is not talking about the final ballot deadline for a specific person on the November general election. Those deadlines I believe are for political parties to submit to the state that the party intends to put up a candidate. It isn’t for naming the candidate. So the DNC and RNC have until those listed dates to say, we plan to put our candidate on the ballot in November. It doesn’t require naming the candidate. That date will come later but there are no conventions ever held that early with almost all DNC and RNC conventions being held in July and August. How could a state demand a name when no one knows the name in June in most presidential elections years. So the dates are correct but the context is absolutely false in my opinion. Quote
tvc184 Posted June 29 Report Posted June 29 I will note that you started a thread this week on why the presidential debate when the candidates weren’t know. Correct so how could a state demand an unknown person? Quote
AggiesAreWe Posted June 29 Report Posted June 29 1 hour ago, tvc184 said: I will note that you started a thread this week on why the presidential debate when the candidates weren’t know. Correct so how could a state demand an unknown person? Because it's reagan SmashMouth 1 Quote
Reagan Posted June 29 Author Report Posted June 29 4 hours ago, tvc184 said: Thoughts… Nonsense and taken way out of context. There are ballot deadlines but this is not talking about the final ballot deadline for a specific person on the November general election. Those deadlines I believe are for political parties to submit to the state that the party intends to put up a candidate. It isn’t for naming the candidate. So the DNC and RNC have until those listed dates to say, we plan to put our candidate on the ballot in November. It doesn’t require naming the candidate. That date will come later but there are no conventions ever held that early with almost all DNC and RNC conventions being held in July and August. How could a state demand a name when no one knows the name in June in most presidential elections years. So the dates are correct but the context is absolutely false in my opinion. I threw this out for discussion. But I'm curious: Do you feel that this is just Kirk's opinion with no facts. Or, Kirk has the facts and it's your opinion that he is misguided on these facts? Quote
tvc184 Posted June 29 Report Posted June 29 32 minutes ago, Reagan said: I threw this out for discussion. But I'm curious: Do you feel that this is just Kirk's opinion with no facts. Or, Kirk has the facts and it's your opinion that he is misguided on these facts? Fact: The deadlines exist. Fact: The candidate doesn’t have to be named by the deadline. I read the Wisconsin law and didn’t bother with the rest when I posted. It listed the fourth Friday at 5pm as the deadline to submit for the filing of the party. Under the name of the candidate it stated something like (I don’t feel like looking it up again at this moment), “To be determined by the party’s procedures at a later date”. So it says that you have to submit that your party wants to place a candidate on the ballot by the date listed. It goes on to say basically, to be determined by the party at a later date. There are other dates for the party to actually name the person. I believe it was yesterday that I saw a video (unconfirmed by me) that Ohio had to have the ballot complete by August 7(?). I only bring that one up to show that there are definitely deadlines for the actual name on the ballot. Just now I pulled up Nevada. In the OP it shows Midnight on the fourth Friday to remove Biden. This is what I found from the Nevada Secretary of State official website: September 3, 2024 LAST DAY FOR MAJOR POLITICAL PARTIES TO PROVIDE SECRETARY OF STATE NAMES OF PRESIDENTIAL AND VICE PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES - Each major political party must provide the names of the party's respective candidates for President and Vice President of the United States to the Secretary of State by not later than 5 p.m. on the first business day of September of the year of a presidential election. So the SoS official Nevada website shows September 3, 2024 (first business day since September 2 is Labor Day) as the final day that major political parties can submit a presidential and vice presidential candidate for the ballot. That doesn’t exactly square with the claim in the OP where the deadline passed last night. Quote
tvc184 Posted June 29 Report Posted June 29 I forgot to add, I think that Kirk is misguided in his conclusions. Quote
Reagan Posted June 29 Author Report Posted June 29 Just now, tvc184 said: I forgot to add, I think that Kirk is misguided in his conclusions. That's Ok. That's why we have opinions! Quote
tvc184 Posted June 29 Report Posted June 29 Just now, Reagan said: That's Ok. That's why we have opinions! The “too late” for Biden or anyone is approaching but in all states likely 6-10 weeks away. That isn’t long but has almost certainly the date to be on the ballot has not passed for any state. Quote
Reagan Posted June 29 Author Report Posted June 29 5 minutes ago, tvc184 said: The “too late” for Biden or anyone is approaching but in all states likely 6-10 weeks away. That isn’t long but has almost certainly the date to be on the ballot has not passed for any state. So, let's look at one State from the original piece: "In Nevada, no changes can be made to the ballot after 5 p.m. on the fourth Friday in June of an election year or 'a nominee dies or is adjudicated insane or mentally incompetent." So, you are saying this is absolutely not true? Quote
tvc184 Posted June 29 Report Posted June 29 6 minutes ago, Reagan said: So, let's look at one State from the original piece: "In Nevada, no changes can be made to the ballot after 5 p.m. on the fourth Friday in June of an election year or 'a nominee dies or is adjudicated insane or mentally incompetent." So, you are saying this is absolutely not true? Yes. Quote
tvc184 Posted June 29 Report Posted June 29 This is what the Nevada Secretary of State shows for ballot deadlines on the last Friday in June: June 28, 2024 CHALLENGE OF CANDIDACY - (not later than 5 p.m. on the 4th Friday in June) Last day for filing with the appropriate filing officer challenge of qualification of an independent candidate for a partisan office. SO IT’S THE LAST DAY!! …. to file an appeal of qualifications of an “independent candidate” for any partisan office. I don’t think we are discussing independent candidates. Quote
tvc184 Posted June 29 Report Posted June 29 Maybe you think that the Nevada Secretary of State, who has to certify the election, is wrong? I didn’t notice any links to your Kirk article. Is anything posted to back this up or is it simply a claim? Quote
Reagan Posted June 29 Author Report Posted June 29 22 minutes ago, tvc184 said: Maybe you think that the Nevada Secretary of State, who has to certify the election, is wrong? I didn’t notice any links to your Kirk article. Is anything posted to back this up or is it simply a claim? Didn't have an opinion one way or the other. I laid it out for discussion and was curious about your opinion since you replied. tvc184 1 Quote
tvc184 Posted June 29 Report Posted June 29 There are so many laws on ballots that it could probably be a degree course. Some say things like, you have to declare your party before January 1 each election year (so in the previous year) and you can’t change. So a potential candidate can’t declare to be a Democrat in December 2023 and then in May 2024 decide to file paperwork to run as a Republican. Each state is different though on dates (including actually different dates on “major” and “minor” parties), appeals, party affiliations, changes to the ballot by any means and so on. The Nevada alone for the 2023-2024 elections season is 9 pages with links to other pages. The states combined might have thousands of pages of election information. The Texas Election Code has about 160…. Chapters. I could understand where a person could read a line or two and say, “Aha! That’s the answer” and ignore 567 pages. Reagan 1 Quote
CardinalBacker Posted July 2 Report Posted July 2 My understanding of the situation is that Biden already has more than enough pledged delegates to win the Dem nomination, and there’s no mechanism within the DNC rules to “sub in” a different candidate. The only option for Biden to be replaced would be for Biden himself to decline the nomination and trigger a new candidate to be elected during the D convention in August-this is what I expect to see happen. But there would doubtlessly be a bloodbath during that selection process. People who believe Harris should be the nominee, moderates vs radicals, and the fact would remain that the dem voters won’t have a say in the eventual nomination. It’s a mess. It also seems like Biden has no plans to step down after the debate disaster. Quote
Reagan Posted July 2 Author Report Posted July 2 1 hour ago, CardinalBacker said: My understanding of the situation is that Biden already has more than enough pledged delegates to win the Dem nomination, and there’s no mechanism within the DNC rules to “sub in” a different candidate. The only option for Biden to be replaced would be for Biden himself to decline the nomination and trigger a new candidate to be elected during the D convention in August-this is what I expect to see happen. But there would doubtlessly be a bloodbath during that selection process. People who believe Harris should be the nominee, moderates vs radicals, and the fact would remain that the dem voters won’t have a say in the eventual nomination. It’s a mess. It also seems like Biden has no plans to step down after the debate disaster. How would these so-called “super delegates” that I think they still have come into play? Know anything about it? I haven’t really studied this. Quote
CardinalBacker Posted July 2 Report Posted July 2 18 minutes ago, Reagan said: How would these so-called “super delegates” that I think they still have come into play? Know anything about it? I haven’t really studied this. From wiki: In This is the hidden content, please Sign In or Sign Up , superdelegates—described in formal party rules as the party leaders and elected official (PLEO) category—make up slightly under 15% of all convention delegates. Before 2018, This is the hidden content, please Sign In or Sign Up superdelegates were free to support any candidate for the presidential nomination in all rounds of balloting. (This contrasts with pledged delegates, who were selected based on the This is the hidden content, please Sign In or Sign Up This is the hidden content, please Sign In or Sign Up in each This is the hidden content, please Sign In or Sign Up , in which voters choose among candidates for the party's This is the hidden content, please Sign In or Sign Up nomination.) In 2018, the This is the hidden content, please Sign In or Sign Up reduced the influence of superdelegates by barring them from voting on the first ballot at the Democratic National Convention, allowing them to vote only in a This is the hidden content, please Sign In or Sign Up . The problem as I understand it is that a candidate needs 1,976 delegates to lock down the nomination, and Biden already 3,894 delegates pledged to him. There won't be contest at the convention if the delegates vote the way that they're pledged to do... and supposedly they have no ability to change their vote to another candidate. This is the hidden content, please Sign In or Sign Up Reagan 1 Quote
LumRaiderFan Posted July 2 Report Posted July 2 This is the hidden content, please Sign In or Sign Up Hunter is now advising the President, there may still be hope for re-election. Quote
tvc184 Posted July 3 Report Posted July 3 Biden would have to withdraw from the race and release his delegates. Each state has its own laws on if they allow releasing of delegates. I am just guessing that a majority of states would allow delegates to be released by the candidate. If Biden is formally nominated at the convention, only he can call it off by his own resignation. Then the DNC decides on a replacement without delegates. Quote
BS Wildcats Posted July 3 Report Posted July 3 Write this down. The D’s are hoping he wins and then steps away, so that the cackling idiot Kamala can become potus. If he wins, this will happen! tvc184 1 Quote
LumRaiderFan Posted July 3 Report Posted July 3 52 minutes ago, BS Wildcats said: Write this down. The D’s are hoping he wins and then steps away, so that the cackling idiot Kamala can become potus. If he wins, this will happen! The only way we could become a bigger laughing stock to the world than we already are. Quote
CardinalBacker Posted July 3 Report Posted July 3 1 hour ago, LumRaiderFan said: The only way we could become a bigger laughing stock to the world than we already are. Well, we could have beaten them with anybody but Trump.... but "we" weren't having that. So enjoy your Harris Presidency. Quote
LumRaiderFan Posted July 3 Report Posted July 3 Just now, CardinalBacker said: Well, we could have beaten them with anybody but Trump.... but "we" weren't having that. So enjoy your Harris Presidency. I know you got your fingers crossed. Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.