I agree that the EC would likely choose the VP "elect".

I also agree that the thought of that woman running the government for 4 years makes me throw up in my mouth a little bit.

From what I've now read though, the EC would be free to choose whomever they wanted to. It wouldn't even have to be someone that was on either ticket.

Wouldn't it be fascinating to see the media scrum surrounding the EC convention? Those people wouldn't know what hit them.

Posted at September 23, 2008 2:37 PM in response to Constitutional Question

Never mind, found it:

One is officially the president-elect only after being chosen by the Electoral College, but unofficially the person chosen in the November popular election is called the President-elect even before the Electoral College meets. An example of the practical effect of the official status is found in the U.S. Constitution's provision that if the President-elect dies, then the Vice President-elect becomes president on Inauguration Day. That rule takes effect only after the meeting of the Electoral College. If the person unofficially called the President-elect dies before that meeting, then the Electoral College would have broad discretion to choose some other person.

What are the chances that they would pick someone besides the VP candidate?

Posted at September 23, 2008 10:32 AM in response to Constitutional Question

Personally I think Erik did a pretty good job of proving you wrong, but (as a voter in MI) I'll give my personal observations. In my family, there are six voting aged adults that I've spoken to about this. 3 support Obama and did not vote, 1 supported Edwards and voted "uncommitted", and 2 support Clinton and only one actually went to the polls and voted.

So out of the six of us, only one person actually voted that day.

Also, as an FYI, the Obama and Edwards supporters stayed home in hopes of creating a low turnout to further de-legitimize the farce that MI called a primary.

Posted at May 31, 2008 8:20 AM in response to Do Florida And Michigan Primaries Really Reflect The Will Of The People? Nope.

You can stereotype what it is you believe is the typical Obama-bot all you want, but I've been a democrat for coming on 20 years now.

I'm a huge Obama supporter.

I've contributed, on a small scale, to previous candidates, but not to the level that I've contributed to Obama.

I've never been moved to actively campaign for a candidate before.

I'm also convinced that the Clinton's have had their time in the White House. We've seen what dynasties get us and it's ugly.

It's time to move on.

Posted at May 29, 2008 9:55 PM in response to I Promise to Stop Being Angry at Hillary...

What info do you feel Greg has gotten from the Clinton campaign that wasn't widely dispersed to every news outlet that would listen?

Posted at May 28, 2008 5:14 PM in response to Poblano Rips Lanny Davis (and Greg Sargent) Apart!

Perhaps "praise" was too strong a word, but by repeatedly calling it a "compromise solution" instead of the partisan hack job that it is he gives the argument credibility.

To say that he didn't "eviscerate it as thoroughly" is a complete understatement. The harshest thing Greg said about it was that it was a "tough sell".

He then finished his post by hitting the Obama campaign for not supporting seating the delegations in full when Greg should know full well that the DNC is going to sanction MI and FL in some fashion. There is no way that those two states are going to come out of this with full participation at the convention, it would neuter the DNC to prevent other states from doing the same thing in 2012.

Posted at May 28, 2008 9:29 AM in response to Poblano Rips Lanny Davis (and Greg Sargent) Apart!

How much do you want to bet that Carl Levin was a major part of each and every one of these fiasco's?

Posted at May 28, 2008 12:11 AM in response to Poblano Rips Lanny Davis (and Greg Sargent) Apart!

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/05/adventures-in-lannyland.html

Linking works great!

Posted at May 27, 2008 7:03 PM in response to Poblano Rips Lanny Davis (and Greg Sargent) Apart!

You make a very passionate argument, but I'm not sure why.

I've read and re-read what I wrote several times and I just don't see where I ever suggested that political parties were not subject to judicial review.

Posted at May 23, 2008 3:23 PM in response to There Is No "Right" To Vote In Primaries!

You mistook what I wrote just slightly by taking the word distraction in a negative way.

I don't consider the topics discussed at the Cafe to be unimportant at all. The information shared and the discussions people are having contain insight as to how people are feeling about the politics of the moment.

Also, your repeated suggestion for "more editorial oversight" sounds like a Bush administration term for censorship. You want TPM to remove posts that you find trivial or unworthy.

It would surprise me a lot to find out that Josh intended to censor the site in such a way.

Posted at May 23, 2008 3:09 PM in response to TPM Café: Now Part of the Problem