or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by NoVaguy

Small sample size. Very few governors have even had to go through a recall. Maybe 3 or 4 in the past century. Nearly everybody else who's been recalled committed misconduct except Gray Davis and Scott Walker.Some exit poll electorate numbers:Year: lib-mod-con; dem-ind-rep;2014: 23-41-35 36-27-372012: 24-40-35 36-31-322010: 21-42-37 37-27-312008: 23-47-31 39-29-33Turnout was 2.41M in 2014, 3.07M in 2012, 2.16M in 2010, and 2.98M in 2008. ...
Candidate I would be most worried about is NV Gov Brian Sandoval (even though he also is a 2010/2014 governor). I'm surprised/not surpised he's not looking at the 2016 election. 2020 may be too late. He might be hoping for the VP slot.
Recalls almost never work unless there's serious misconduct, Gray Davis being the exception that proves the rule (and again, Gray may survived but for a moderate-liberal GOP candidate like Arnold and CA's unusual 2 stage recall procedure) And recall elections are low turnout affairs that usually favor conservative voters.And the two years that Walker won were 2010 (a midterm and an antiobamacare reaction year) and 2014 (midterm and 6th year of administration effect). Two...
He's at an advantage for the primary but a disadvantage in the general because he's mostly Koch funded, and has barely won 3 elections in a state that is a lean Red in midterm/special elections but hard blue in presidential elections. But he's never won an election in a presidential year. So people look at him and he can win, but in reality, he's a lot weaker than he looks. He would be served by trying to go Senate first but that is not an option this year as the...
You have serious problems.
The new republic has a story on this as well.http://www.newrepublic.com/article/121417/indiana-religious-freedom-law-lgbt-discrimination-mostly-legalTitle: "Religious Freedom" Laws Don't Legalize LGBT Discrimination. That's Already Legal in Most of America.
Context matters. 1993 federal law was passed in the context of native American religious rights and the war on drugs. If I recall correctly, the federal law was a response to some case about the use of peyote in a religious setting getting people fired or imprisoned back then was upheld by the Supreme court, since peyote was on the controlled list then (and may be now, for all I know). It also predated the recent Hobby Lobby supreme court case, and hobby lobby decision...
I thought that the RNC adjusted the debate and primary schedules to increase the chances of getting a candidate locked up earlier.
I think the more interesting statement is that you think that it "could only lead to that conclusion". Bubble indeed.
If you were in favor of a textualist or strict constructionist approach, the law passed in the 21st century would be irrelevant as to the interpretation of an 18th century constitutional phrase.
New Posts  All Forums: