she can file a resignation "taking effect date of" the day after the election, and start the special election clock at 145-160 days the day after election (the election must also take place on a Tuesday), but the resignation doesn't take effect until the day she's sworn in.

When Romney was governor of Mass, the law stated that when a senator gave up their term, the governor got to appoint the permanent replacement.

Well, the democratic-controlled legislature didn't want that to happen so they hastily passed - and overrode Romney's veto - a new law that said there had to be a special election within a certain number of months to choose the permanent replacement, the governor only gets to choose the interim replacement.

Now, not even wanting to allow the governor that much latitude, the Massachusetts legislature could pass another veto-proof law that said the person that the governor chooses has to be confirmed by the legislature.

Trump Fundraiser Threatens Romney Republicans with Possibility of Gary Busey Being Nominated to the Supreme Court

I called it!

Just anecdotal, but I was hanging out with some friends this weekend, and two of them are moderate conservatives--I know they each voted for Romney, and I am pretty sure they voted for McCain. And both of them are voting for Clinton. (One left open the possibility that if the polling showed NC in a blowout in either direction, he might vote for Gary Johnson to help him reach 10%).

I know that Trump's whole strategy is to bring in new voters and convert non-traditional voters to the GOP. But based on what I have seen, he will have to make up some ground with Romney Republicans to get back to zero before he starts improving on recent numbers.

Couple additional thoughts. My friends are not a representative sample, so this anecdotal evidence may need to be taken with a larger grain of salt than normal.

Also, these are guys who are still (I am assuming) going to vote mostly GOP down-ticket. Even if Hillary puts up big numbers, I wonder if the coattail effect will be as large as her margin of victory would otherwise cause one to predict.

I can just imagine how his rulings would read.

That makes perfect sense, and we've all heard Republicans criticize Trump, but the polls also consistently show that Sanders does MUCH better against Trump than Clinton. We have to take those polls with a grain of salt too, but I think the evidence shows that however many Republicans will vote for Clinton instead of Trump are outnumbered by the amount of Sanders supporters who will vote for Trump. I haven't figured out who these people are whose preference goes Sanders - Trump - Clinton, but I am seeing a lot of my liberal facebook friends pitching a plan where individuals from countries who are hostile to homosexuality should be banned from the U.S. unless they denounce those anti-gay polices. That's where the far left reaches the far right, I guess.

I think that's just a factor of Sanders still being in the race. A lot of Sanders' fans are going to try to say they'll vote Trump or sit at home, so the polling numbers for Sanders v. Trump looks better and they can try their quixotic attempt to get the superdelegates to switch by saying Sanders is better for the general.

Those numbers will likely be far different after the conventions.

Yeah, the grain of salt is well taken, and I'd say the same about my own experiences. I had a co-worker who was obnoxiously conservative (like, he admitted to me at one point that he trusted Republican governance more than Democratic, even if it took shenanigans to get that Republican governance - the end mattered more than the means) say flat out that he would not vote for Donald Trump. He'd come around on the idea of voting for Bernie Sanders, but Trump/Clinton he was just going to sit out entirely because he couldn't stomach either one. That's one voter lost that Trump is going to have to dig up somewhere else.

I had two other co-workers who appeared to lean conservative, but were planning to vote for Clinton because of Trump's behavior toward women (both were female co-workers).

Personal experience has little bearing on the larger picture, but enough anecdotal stories and it starts to pile up.

Yeah, While we're still days out from the Orlando shooting, so I'm not sure that it's baked into the polls yet, the numbers have definitely shifted toward Clinton.

National poll: Hillary Clinton up 12 percentage points on Donald Trump - POLITICO

Clinton 49, Trump 37, Johnson 9

Poll: Clinton Eats Away at Trump's Lead Among Men, White Voters - NBC News

Clinton 49, Trump 42

Considering the kicking that Trump is taking for his pat on the back tweets, I wonder if it will lengthen (spoiler alert: I hope it does)

9% is pretty good for a libertarian candidate.

that'll probably translate into 0.9% in November

Sadly yes, but who will that 8.1% of the vote go to?

I'd be stunned if Trump ends up lower than 40%. We're just too polarized a country.

Newt goes full Senator McCarthy.

(you never go full Senator McCarthy)

http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/14/politi...ies-committee/

Someone live tweeted a Trump rally.

edit: https://storify.com/case_face/a-trum...-here-is-palpa

Wow.

I'm sure these rallies have bad elements but that sounds almost completely made up.

This post helps explain why, though you come across as intelligent, your political posts quite often seem completely out of left field to me. If your response is to think this is made up, the I suspect that you are extremely tone deaf to the mood of the great unwashed in Thai country.

Thai Country Restaurant - Home

Season 5 of Eastbound and Down?

There's a lot of "Oh, that's not real" going around on Facebook. Trump not paying his debts to venues he has rallies at. Oh, that's not real.

Pretty much. In general, I completely disregard anything RM has to say in political posts.

On the flip side, I think the person I enjoy most in these threads is molson. IIRC, he's been frustrated at times with discussions here, but for me personally, he usually has a well-reasoned, well-written angle on things I hadn't fully considered, and it gives me something more to think about.

Yeah, I read that article this morning too. It's incredible that when they say they want a country free from PC, where they can say what they want. What they really want is a country where they are free to say and act as racist as they like, free from any consequenses and more than that, where it's approved to say such things by the most powerful man in the country.

I didn't know wanting to stymie the regressives of the left is considered racist since PC encompasses much more than just race. As a guy who just graduated from college nothing pisses me off more than the liberal regressives. The shit I see on my Facebook newsfeed pisses me off a lot sometimes coming mostly from females from the retarded Tumblr circlejerk.

It's thanks to them and the stupid media that Trump is where he is today. No such thing as bad publicity and they just kept giving him attention.

Yep, the things people on Tumblr say would definitely be the number one thing that's wrong with the country today. Never thought of it like that, but great point. I'd also suppose based on your demeanor and post history that all these females who post 'retarded' things you hate are people you have many real-world interactions with and would be incredibly dismayed if you were to unfriend them.

Funny that you call them "regressives on the left," when the right is actually campaigning on a platform to wipe out anything that happened in the last 8 years.

As a guy who just graduated from college, it sounds like you still have a lot to learn and think about. It's okay. We were all there once. As scary as it sounds, I graduated college 20 years ago now and I've learned a lot since then. Perspective and real life experience matter. Good luck with your journey!

There seems to be this sense among the anti-Trumpers that his followers will abandon him if only they see who he really is.

But what has he been hiding? What about Trump's approach thusfar would make you think that that people who love him enough to attend his rally wouldn't be exactly like this?

That would be true 4-6 years ago when social media was no where near as powerful as it is today. It takes a few retweets which automatically posts to Facebook, then a few shares, then it spreads like crazy.

I'm not going to vote for Trump no matter what because he's an idiot and not qualified but the sadistic side of me is enjoying the butthurt regressives are having.

The mistake all of the republican candidates made against Trump since day 1 was fighting him based on policy. Had one of them just called him out and attacked him (excluding Jeb) he would've never had a shot.

Yes great post and was exactly what I was thinking.

Umm ...

Was that supposed to be sarcasm or well-intentioned? Honest question.

It's usually the other way around since you know...most college students are or become liberal.

If that includs the Citizen's United and FISA court rulings, I might be interested.

Well the source of the tweets is a diehard Sanders supporter who does nothing but tweet about how evil everyone else is. And the event he witnessed just seems to conveniently hit every stereotype. I'd think the same thing if it was a diehard Trump supporter talking about how he went to a Sander rally and they talked about sending capitalists to the Gulag while wearing their Che Guevara shirts burning American flags as people sold copies of the Communist Manifesto outside.

I'm just skeptical of what extreme partisans say these days. Both sides are looking for validation and attention. We have fake hate crimes, hoaxes, and massive disinformation being disseminated. Not sure why it's crazy to be skeptical of a random extreme partisan portraying a Trump rally in such cartoonish terms.

Jon with the thread win :)

And by "8 years" you mean "8 decades". :D


Yeah, total LOL moment. :D Thread is only downhill from here.

"Like crazy." You think the average voter has even heard of Tumblr or Twitter? As has been mentioned, a little perspective goes a long ways.

I don't think it's made up, but I'm not sure how much of that is Trump and how much is geography. I do think you'd see more confederate flags at a Democratic rally in Greensboro than a Trump one in Massachusetts or Chicago. Just like the uber-progressive Sanders supporters probably aren't showing up as much in your facebook feed as they are in someone like mine who grew up in and went to college in Massachusetts. Yeah, technological advances and ease of travel have made the country a lot more homogeneous, but there are still pretty drastically different cultures.

Perhaps not, "as much," but I am fully aware, purely from my FB feed, that Bernie won California. ;)

Allegedly there are over 50 million Americans on Twitter, so yeah.

I'd be shocked if the average voter hasn't heard of Twitter. Cable news will sometimes even quote tweets.

The person who live tweeted the rally wrote it up fully in an article for The New Republic:

American Horror Story | New Republic

Oh, so half of America watches cable news now, and not only watches it but sees something somebody may have tweeted being discussed and makes the distinction that it's something from a social media site and not just a quote or press release?

Cable news, ESPN. I'm sure there are some elderly out there who haven't, but you'd have to be actively avoiding electronic media not to at this point.

Tumblr I'd certainly buy. That's a weird fringe/cultish one in my experience. Facebook, Twitter, instagram are the 3 that a large majority knows, with snapchat having higher market penetration under 21, but very few over the age of 30 having heard of it.

Yes.

ISiddiqui: OMG did you see when Hillary said 'delete your account' to Trump on Twitter? It was some hilarious ownage.

Average American: [blank stare]

ISiddiqui: You know, Twitter? Where people send out tweets that everyone else can read (unless it's a direct message, but you and the other person both have to be following each other for that to happen in the first place), and then people can like your tweets and retweet them to their followers.

Average American: OK, sure. Yeah I guess that's what they're talking about with Twitter on the news.

I have literally not run into anyone in 2016 who hasn't heard of Twitter. When I mention Twitter, everyone knows what I mean.

We've heard of it, at least 10-20 percent of us have ... just very few of us can figure out how (or why) to use it.

*This was actually a mini-topic I saw on Facebook a couple days ago, basically 35 & up, it's beyond virtually all of us.

From what I can gather from news reports, if you use Snapchat and you are a hot female teacher, it means you are banging at least one of your students.

And from the way you tell it, every Bernie Sanders supporter you've run into is now voting for Trump because they are all closet anarchists or something. I already know the people you interact with do not form a very representative sample of America as a whole. Does everyone you run into think Game of Thrones is the best show on TV right now, or are they bigger fans of Veep?

For someone who liked to talk about "liberal smugness," the failure to recognize that the majority of people have much bigger concerns than what went viral on political Twitter (and even among Twitter users in America, #LyricsThatHaveToBeShouted and the France-Albania soccer match are the most-discussed trends at the moment - I don't have to go out on much of a limb to guess that a good chunk of the people posting their favorite song lyrics in the middle of the afternoon on a summer weekday are not going to be 18 years old by November 8) is pretty rich.

edit with bonus fleregram:

The circles were getting too small but the next one was going to be "people who think that some random meme on Twitter that got 1000 RTs has some kind of sway on political discourse in America."