Mitt Romney met privately with William Kristol, who is leading the effort to draft an independent ca
Source: Washington Post
In spite of his insistence that he will not run, Mitt Romney is being courted this week by a leading conservative commentator to reconsider and jump into the volatile 2016 presidential race as an independent candidate.
William Kristol, the longtime editor of the Weekly Standard magazine and a leading voice on the right, met privately with the 2012 nominee on Thursday afternoon to discuss the possibility of launching an independent bid, potentially with Romney as its standard-bearer.
He came pretty close to being elected president, so I thought he may consider doing it, especially since he has been very forthright in explaining why Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton should not be president of the United States, Kristol said in a phone interview Friday, during which he confirmed that he and Romney had a little meeting in Washington.
But knowing Romneys reluctance, Kristol told Romney that if he remains unwilling to run, many top conservatives would appreciate having the former Massachusetts governors support for an independent candidate, should Kristol and other right-leaning figures enlist a willing contender.
Read more: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/05/06/mitt-romney-met-privately-with-william-kristol-who-is-leading-the-effort-to-draft-an-independent-bid/?tid=pm_politics_pop_b
still_one
(92,404 posts)a good source of income, because I don't think the republican party can use their funds for it, because I suspect that would be a violation of their rules, and I think Trump would have an excellent case against them if the did such
Jack Rabbit
(45,984 posts)Sell off the assets of one of Bain Capital's clients piece by piece and ship the jobs overseas.
still_one
(92,404 posts)Jack Rabbit
(45,984 posts)Given his record of deadly accurate prognosticating, we will know exactly what to do when he says he's going to open a can of whoopass on Putin or Assad: Duck and cover.
The Velveteen Ocelot
(115,858 posts)is the guy who heavily promoted the selection of Sarah Palin as McCain's running mate. So we know this is an incredibly excellent idea, too.
C Moon
(12,221 posts)brooklynite
(94,735 posts)TeamPooka
(24,255 posts)BlueMTexpat
(15,373 posts)the anti-Trump GOPers.
Vanilla Warcraft
(25 posts)Is this the 12th amendment scheme to deny Hillary 270 electoral votes, sending the selection of the president to the house of representatives? It obviously wouldn't work if you assumed Trump and Romney were both playing to win. What if they conspired to split up states like Comcast and Verizon broadband?
gopiscrap
(23,765 posts)Human101948
(3,457 posts)If no candidate receives a majority of Electoral votes, the House of Representatives elects the President from the 3 Presidential candidates who received the most Electoral votes. Each state delegation has one vote.
I think this would work in favor of the Republicans.
bemildred
(90,061 posts)Which might well look kind of funny too, in that kind of election. You could get more "factions" and disputes things.
Human101948
(3,457 posts)before the new session is called to order.
bemildred
(90,061 posts)But now I think about it, we are that fucked up that the old one would insist on doing it.
Do you know?
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)Almost all the states are plurality winner takes all. A viable third party run on the right hands Clinton an electoral landslide.
McKim
(2,412 posts)They would split the vote and give Sanders a clean sweep.
laserhaas
(7,805 posts)sofa king
(10,857 posts)https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twelfth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
If no candidate wins a majority of electoral votes, it is this very Republican Congress which would first have the option to decide, shortly after electors cast their votes, which is shortly after the first Monday after the second Wednesday in December, or Monday the 19th of 2016.
At that point Congress is supposed to pick among the top three candidates--which is where the ultraconservative spoiler has a chance to steal it. The way the vote goes is strange: each state has only one vote, and a candidate must win 26 states. That works heavily in favor of the flyover states, which suddenly have a dramatically out-of-proportion influence relative to their populations. Mitt Romney got whooped by over 120 EVs and still won 24 states in 2012; I don't know how many states have a majority of Republican Members in the House, but thanks to their gerrymandering, I'll bet it's more than that. (Democrats might try to assert that it's the senior Member of the delegation who decides, but it won't work.)
They would of course pick among the two running Republicans if Trump does us the favor of flipping the House for the next Congress. But if he doesn't, there's another option....
Members of the House are up for election in only two years, and they'll pay dearly for stealing an election. What if they do what they do best, and do nothing?
Sure, they're supposed to immediately choose, just like the Senate is supposed to hold hearings on a Supreme Court nominee. But nothing happens if they don't, and they only have to delay for two weeks before the 115th Congress ends.
One could and surely would argue that when the next, 116th, Congress takes over in early January, 2017, the window of opportunity to choose a President is clearly lost and now the line of succession as dictated by the 25th Amendment and continuity of government laws prevails.
And the evenly-divided Supreme Court would deadlock 4-4 and be of no help. It would be easy to run out the clock and simply move the problem beyond the 12th Amendment decision.
So if they don't choose in December, everything turns on the elections within Congress in the first week of January, 2017. It's a new Congress and therefore they have to elect a new Speaker of the House and President Pro Tempore, who are third and fourth in line of succession to the Presidency, according to continuity of government laws, and first and second when the terms of President Obama and Vice President Biden expire on January 20.
Whomever wins as Speaker--and Paul Ryan is the runaway favorite--would become acting President at noon on January 20, and in completely uncharted territory.
Is he supposed to hold an emergency election? Probably, but he won't. If you toss it into court, he'll nominate Dick Cheney as the ninth Supreme Court Justice and win 5-4, whatever he decides. Does the Acting President's term ever end? What if he declares a state of emergency and suspends elections forever? Republican criminals are in a position to decide all those things, and they're on the verge of a permanent demographic collapse, where stealing the United States forever might be their last and only chance to retain power....
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twenty-fifth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_line_of_succession
Anyway, that's all I've found so far. Sleep well, Democrats. Check your voter registration first thing on Monday, and don't piss away your vote forever on a protest candidate, eh?
olddad56
(5,732 posts)Have Trump select the VP candidate of the shadow government's choice. Rig the election like in 2000, then 6 months or so after Trump is elected, create a scandal, Trump resigns and some person that the populous would have never elected becomes the acting president. Never put anything past the crooks that actually control the country.
roamer65
(36,747 posts)Google it and read up on it. We just may repeat history.
bemildred
(90,061 posts)sendero
(28,552 posts).... and make it a complete trifecta of idiots.
ThoughtCriminal
(14,049 posts)In particular, I want "Mr. Always Wrong About Everything" to tell me which stocks not to buy.
LiberalLovinLug
(14,176 posts)As another independent. He's clearly the candidate with the least negatives.
Money? He has an army of donors. And a legion of talented YouTube ad creators.
A four way race?...Bernie would take it.
viva the revolution!
laserhaas
(7,805 posts)laserhaas
(7,805 posts)Romney v Clinton will be a toughy
But Mitt v Bernie woild be awesome
awoke_in_2003
(34,582 posts)Let's see, 332 electoral college votes versus 206, and 5 million less people on the popular vote. Yeah, pretty close