So if Trump gets hit by a bus tomorrow

[NobleHunter]

Who do the Electors vote for? What are their legal obligations? Who should they vote for? While Pence is the obvious choice, I don't think it's straightforward.

Complications:

Pence is not Trump. Unlike other VPs, he's not just a faded echo of the presidential candidate but coming from a substantially different background and representing a very different interest group. It be like giving GOP voters Jeb Bush when they picked Ted Cruz.

Clinton won the popular vote. She only lost the electoral vote by a small number of votes in a few states.

Both sides are likely to freak right out, pretty much regardless of the choice. The conspiracy theorist would have a field day and Trump's helped some of them move mainstream. Whatever happens, it would really screw with the legitimacy of the vote.

[Pete at Home]

Pence is a terrifying prospect.

[TheDrake]

You'll have to hurry. Electors meet Dec 19. After that, presumably, Pence is locked in as the understudy. As with all electoral college activity, I suppose they can do whatever they want. Since most electors are highly tied to their party, in practice this means they will do whatever the party leadership says to do (RNC).

RNC could take several tacks. They could install someone from the "establishment" like Ryan, but that would send the series of cabinet appointments into total disarray. Pence is the likely safer move, although you could see something bizarre like Priebus. No way on planet Earth do committed Republican party electors break faith badly enough to vote for Hillary, but there might be just one lunatic bent on getting their 15 minutes of fame at the expense of terminating any relationship with the republican party forever.

More interesting is the possibility of dissent in the electors between Pence and a wildcard RNC suggestion. This could conceivably leave things disputed and throw everything to the House, who will rubberstamp the RNC suggestion most likely.

[AI Wessex]

Pence is a terrifying prospect.

It doesn't get any better as you go down the line.

[Pete at Home]

Pence is a terrifying prospect.

It doesn't get any better as you go down the line.

You mean Paul Ryan?  Agreed there, brother. Let us pray for Trump's health and safety in that light.

[AI Wessex]

I occasionally buy lottery tickets, demonstrating that I am dysnumerically inclined despite my training and experience.  I also hold out hope that the Electoral College will do their duty to correct the mistake of this election's outcome, which indicates that I am also dysdemocratic.  OTOH, the Constitution and Founders (especially Hamilton) envisioned the EC as a check against the kind of populism that would succumb to a demagogue like Trump.  Their wisdom was intended to trump someone like Trump by selecting a better alternative.

[Pete at Home]

Agreed generally to the principle, Al, but when you think of who picked those electors, ... If they deviate from Trump, I reckon we're going to get Ryan or worse.  Trump is imo better than a tea party coup.

[Greg Davidson]

If not Trump, it will go to the House of Representatives which will pick a Republican who I will strongly dislike on regular grounds, but who does not give me cause for concern that in a fit of rage he might launch a nuclear strike that kills 100 million people. 

A far better outcome, even if in most scenarios the Republicans will be stronger if the Presidency would go to Cruz or Kasich or Ryan or Romney.

[AI Wessex]

The palpable fear and anxiety millions of people associate with Trump assuming the office of President is itself frightening. It's so dire that Greg and some others consider that even Cruz might be a better alternative.  I read an article in The Atlantic yesterday where the author said that an Elector revolt is unthinkable, but Trump would be worse.  It seems that we are on the verge of entering the Twilight Zone or perhaps the twilight of our Democracy, or as Lindsay Graham asked, would you rather be poisoned or shot.

[Fenring]

If not Trump, it will go to the House of Representatives which will pick a Republican who I will strongly dislike on regular grounds, but who does not give me cause for concern that in a fit of rage he might launch a nuclear strike that kills 100 million people. 

I find this position incredibly ironic, given that you were supporting a candidate who advocated actions that, if honestly undertaken, would potentially have led to war with Russia (a nuclear power). Trump has advocated for peace with Russia, and has been condemned for that! And now you're asserting on top of it that he'll cause deaths too.

I can't say with any kind of authority that you're wrong. But I like how with Hillary no accusation had any basis unless proven beyond a shadow of a doubt, but with Trump anything he's actually said doesn't count and all accusations have the very bent of truth.

[AI Wessex]

But I like how with Hillary no accusation had any basis unless proven beyond a shadow of a doubt, but with Trump anything he's actually said doesn't count and all accusations have the very bent of truth.

That is an amazingly dense statement, considering how she has been personally attacked as well as hounded by partisan committees with charges of corruption and investigated more than any other public in my lifetime and never been found liable for any crimes.  You make an impossible comparison between her and a very public liar and somehow find the standard for judging her far too high.

[Fenring]

You make an impossible comparison between her and a very public liar and somehow find the standard for judging her far too high.

She is a very public liar. Don't see any difference between them there, other than his lies are haphazard and hers are carefully considered.

[NobleHunter]

She is a very public liar. Don't see any difference between them there, other than his lies are haphazard and hers are carefully considered.

I would take a considered liar over a compulsive one. It's pretty easy to infer when a considered liar is actually lying and they're only likely to do it when they really need to. You only know a haphazard liar is lying when you have information that contradicts them. Which, granted, is easy to come by since such a liar is unlikely to avoid lying when it's easily disproven.

Even worse, a haphazard liar is inherently destabilizing in diplomatic contexts. It makes it very difficult for other parties to accurately determine the results of actions. It's pure guess work if any given statement is a hard limit or just bluster. I wouldn't be surprised if there's an endless series of "red line" moments. Probably from Trump's twitter feed.

[cherrypoptart]

If there are two politicians and they are both liars, the preferable one is whichever shares my agenda. I use whatever excuses are necessary to rationalize the choice. Deep down I think that's what most people really believe too.

[D.W.]

I agree cherry.  If it was a choice of liars, and not agenda, I'd go with Trump.  He's a more... transparent liar.  Hillary tries WAY to hard to never get caught in a lie.  Not that she's more truthful, just... paranoid level cautious with the doublespeak. 

[Seriati]

Pence is a terrifying prospect.

It doesn't get any better as you go down the line.

I kind of pity you if you believe that's true.  You've pretty much identified the coming of Trump as the beginning of the Apocalypse, and Pence as "terrifying" and now you seem to believe that there is no Republican who would be much better?  Is it just possible, that if you can't find common ground with any one in a party that is almost as large as your own, that the issue is you not them?  Maybe, much like in the early days of treating discrimination where part of the solution was just to introduce people so they could come to realize the other group were people too, you should go to some kind of group session where you can meet Republicans up close and get to know them.

[cherrypoptart]

Conservatives are the "other".

[AI Wessex]

I kind of pity you if you believe that's true.  You've pretty much identified the coming of Trump as the beginning of the Apocalypse, and Pence as "terrifying" and now you seem to believe that there is no Republican who would be much better?

Who?  Ryan? Privatize Medicare? A "Better Way"?  Then who?  The GOP agenda is the steady dismantling of the federal government.  Why should I be happy about any of them, where the differences between them are which program they want to gut first.  But yes, Trump could well be the apocalyptic dream come true of wack right.  Cherry is even ok that he lies for no reason at all, because he's sure he hasn't lied to him.

[Seriati]

Whereas, I just think is hypocritical of anyone to be up in arms about Trump's lies after they supported Hillary. 

By the way, I'm still waiting for you to support your claim that Trump was telling significant lies, and that his true position would be worse.

[NobleHunter]

Four more years of "But Clinton..."

*sigh*

[Seriati]

Yeah, don't intend to do that, but not happy with blatant hypocrisy either. 

My view has always been that Trump is more likely to move towards the liberal side than to stay as conservative as he appeared or move further right.  Accordingly, the left should be happier with him than they are.  AI actually tried to say that Trump is lying, and his real positions will be "worse."  I can't imagine what secret position he thinks Trump has that is worse than the public ones.

[rightleft22]

I just think is hypocritical of anyone to be up in arms about Trump's lies after they supported Hillary. 

I just think it’s hypocritical to anyone to be up in arms about Hillary criminal allegations after they supported Trump

How long does the 'Hillary was evil" so Trump gets a free pass going to last as a rebuttal to any criticism of Trump?

[D.W.]

Seriati, at this point I think there are two options.  Trump is far more liberal than he campaigned as.  This is somewhat supported by his past.  He will move towards the center and other than dismantling some Democratic pet projects (much to the nation's detriment IMO) it will be "less bad" than we think.

The second option is the one I fear.  He is "trolling the nation" in a sense and will go out of his way to exploit the office for his own personal benefit as much as he can get away with.  He may even go so far as to shove our faces in it with a, "I'm helping you out but illustrating exactly how corrupt our system is!"  I STILL believe he didn't want the office other than for ego and bragging rights.  I don't think he believes he can "make America great again".  I think he believes he can make Trump even greater...  (And that was going to happen win or lose.)

[Seriati]

I just think is hypocritical of anyone to be up in arms about Trump's lies after they supported Hillary. 

I just think it’s hypocritical to anyone to be up in arms about Hillary criminal allegations after they supported Trump

I don't support Trump.  I don't support Clinton.  I don't have any issue with pursuit of any criminal allegations against Trump if there is evidence (I have no opinion on this because I haven't researched the facts, it may be there, it may not).  Based on the record, Hillary should have been charged.

I agree that a Trump supporter could be a hypocrite depending on the specific issues they have with Hillary.  However, I think it's a settled that someone supporting Hillary while condemning Trump on the issue of honesty is a blatant hypocrite.

How long does the 'Hillary was evil" so Trump gets a free pass going to last as a rebuttal to any criticism of Trump?

It doesn't act as a rebuttal.  If you want to argue specific issues, happy to do it. 

[rightleft22]

The rebuttal comment wasn't directed specific to you but reflects my frustration when attempting to talk about issues of character with regards to Trump with a Trump follower.
The dialog invariably pivots to how bad Hillary is or would have been - so

How long does the 'Hillary was evil" so Trump gets a free pass going to last as a rebuttal to any criticism of Trump?

[Pete at Home]

I would say "evil HTC" will lose power some time after the electoral college and at or before the time that Trump vetos a Republican anti abortion bill.

[AI Wessex]

I agree that a Trump supporter could be a hypocrite depending on the specific issues they have with Hillary.  However, I think it's a settled that someone supporting Hillary while condemning Trump on the issue of honesty is a blatant hypocrite.

You never admit to being anything but logical, but insistence on this particular bit of false equivalence makes a lie of that.  I would try to explain that to you, but it wouldn't do any good.

[Pete at Home]

as far as honesty goes, I think Trump is a more persuasive when lying than HRC, but not as good at it as Bill Clinton or George Bush Sr.  (Reagan and Bush Jr are in an entirely different category as unwitting mouthpieces who AFAIK never knew nor cared whether what they were handed to say was true, while Reagan to his credit did take care to accurately pronounce his lines. That's the difference between the Actor and the Cheerleader.)

If anyone disagrees with the above analysis (as opposed to just being piously upset that I said it out loud) please specify your disagreement.

If anyone's confused about my shorthand POTUS references, from 1980 on, The Actor, The Spook, The Slut, The Cheerleader, The Messiah, and I don't have one for Trump yet.

[NobleHunter]

How about the Garbage Fire?

Trump is very good at being sincerely dishonest. Whatever he says he seems to absolutely believe it at the time he's saying it.

[Pete at Home]

How about the Garbage Fire?

Trump is very good at being sincerely dishonest. Whatever he says he seems to absolutely believe it at the time he's saying it.

Some lies he looks down and grits his teeth. It's not as strong a tell as Hillary's smirk when her lie gets an audience cheer, though.

[Pete at Home]

NH, I have a name in mind for him, but want to see him govern a bit before I am sure that he is, in fact, The Scarecrow.

Oops.

[Pete at Home]

Any guess at what I call Jimmy Carter?

[Pete at Home]

Obama I would call the most careful and conservative liar in Oval office history, since his deceptions focus on intent, motive, and other improvables.   his lies tend to have plausible deniability. Fanboys will argue to their dying breath that he really did oppose SSM and later "evolved" as he said he might, that he honestly believed at some point that militant attacks were a genuine reaction to th "Innocence of Muslims" YouTube puke, etc.

[TheDeamon]

Any guess at what I call Jimmy Carter?

I know a lot of people who call him The Peanut Farmer. So in that vein, maybe Charlie Brown? 

[Pete at Home]

Any guess at what I call Jimmy Carter?

I know a lot of people who call him The Peanut Farmer. So in that vein, maybe Charlie Brown? 

I call Jimmy Carter ... "The President."