WWTBAM Bored

I wonder how many of the Republicans who are "unendorsing" Donald Trump today and calling for him to step down are doing so, like NH Senator Kelly Ayotte, who said earlier in the week that Trump was a good role model for kids before she (or her campaign) rethought that a couple of hours later because (a) they were that offended by the last tape (as opposed to all his other remarks over the years), or (b) because the polls are bad and Mike Pence looks much better after the VP debate and they see him as a more electable alternative (or at least less of a drain downticket) now?

I don't see how it could be correct to just promote Pence to the top of the ticket (if they could figure out how to remove Trump). He did not participate in the primaries as a candidate.

Why wouldn't we have to go back to the states somehow, and let folks vote for Kasich or Cruz or whoever?

Except early voting has already begun, so it would be simpler to wait and let the Electoral College sort it out in December. That institution would finally mean something.

Ritterskoop wrote:I don't see how it could be correct to just promote Pence to the top of the ticket (if they could figure out how to remove Trump). He did not participate in the primaries as a candidate.

Why wouldn't we have to go back to the states somehow, and let folks vote for Kasich or Cruz or whoever?

Except early voting has already begun, so it would be simpler to wait and let the Electoral College sort it out in December. That institution would finally mean something.

There has to be a procedure in place if a candidate died or became disabled at this point in the campaign. I know a few years back that Senator Wellstone of Minnesota was killed in a plane crash and Walter Mondale took his place on the ballot (he lost). So, I assume that something similar could happen here, but Trump has indicated he has no intention of quitting.

silverscreenselect wrote:

Ritterskoop wrote:I don't see how it could be correct to just promote Pence to the top of the ticket (if they could figure out how to remove Trump). He did not participate in the primaries as a candidate.

Why wouldn't we have to go back to the states somehow, and let folks vote for Kasich or Cruz or whoever?

Except early voting has already begun, so it would be simpler to wait and let the Electoral College sort it out in December. That institution would finally mean something.

There has to be a procedure in place if a candidate died or became disabled at this point in the campaign. I know a few years back that Senator Wellstone of Minnesota was killed in a plane crash and Walter Mondale took his place on the ballot (he lost). So, I assume that something similar could happen here, but Trump has indicated he has no intention of quitting.

There is no procedure to replace a presidential candidate once ballots have been printed and distributed as they have.

Bob Juch wrote:

silverscreenselect wrote:

Ritterskoop wrote:I don't see how it could be correct to just promote Pence to the top of the ticket (if they could figure out how to remove Trump). He did not participate in the primaries as a candidate.

Why wouldn't we have to go back to the states somehow, and let folks vote for Kasich or Cruz or whoever?

Except early voting has already begun, so it would be simpler to wait and let the Electoral College sort it out in December. That institution would finally mean something.

There has to be a procedure in place if a candidate died or became disabled at this point in the campaign. I know a few years back that Senator Wellstone of Minnesota was killed in a plane crash and Walter Mondale took his place on the ballot (he lost). So, I assume that something similar could happen here, but Trump has indicated he has no intention of quitting.

There is no procedure to replace a presidential candidate once ballots have been printed and distributed as they have.

Of course, nobody votes for a president directly. Instead, they vote for electors who are pledged (but not legally bound) to a candidate. So, presumably, if a candidate died, the party could ask electors to vote for the VP choice or a substitute candidate and they would be free to do so, even though the dead person's name appeared on the ballot.

silverscreenselect wrote:

Bob Juch wrote:

silverscreenselect wrote:
There has to be a procedure in place if a candidate died or became disabled at this point in the campaign. I know a few years back that Senator Wellstone of Minnesota was killed in a plane crash and Walter Mondale took his place on the ballot (he lost). So, I assume that something similar could happen here, but Trump has indicated he has no intention of quitting.

There is no procedure to replace a presidential candidate once ballots have been printed and distributed as they have.

Of course, nobody votes for a president directly. Instead, they vote for electors who are pledged (but not legally bound) to a candidate. So, presumably, if a candidate died, the party could ask electors to vote for the VP choice or a substitute candidate and they would be free to do so, even though the dead person's name appeared on the ballot.

Some state laws do purport to legally bind electors to the choice of the plurality. It's an open question whether those laws are enforceable. --Bob

In its charter, the RNC has the authority to name a replacement in the event of death or resignation. There's some squishy language that allows a replacement for "other circumstances." That's Question #1

Problem #2 is that ballot certification deadlines in each state have passed. State have different laws about whether they can be reprinted.

Opportunity #3, the RNC could suggest to the electors of the Electoral College that they cast their votes in a particular way. Some states bind their Electors to the will of the people; others have freedom.

Certainty #4, the lawyers would get involved and it very well may be the case that a 4-4 Supreme Court would make a ruling.

bazodee wrote:In its charter, the RNC has the authority to name a replacement in the event of death or resignation. There's some squishy language that allows a replacement for "other circumstances." That's Question #1

Problem #2 is that ballot certification deadlines in each state have passed. State have different laws about whether they can be reprinted.

Opportunity #3, the RNC could suggest to the electors of the Electoral College that they cast their votes in a particular way. Some states bind their Electors to the will of the people; others have freedom.

Certainty #4, the lawyers would get involved and it very well may be the case that a 4-4 Supreme Court would make a ruling.

Certainty #5, the legal dispute won't be as significant as Bush v. Gore, because the debacle will ensure a landslide Clinton victory.

With only four weeks until Election Day, it's kinda late for all of these Republicans--especially the ones running for re-election in blue states and swing states this year--to suddenly detach themselves from Pussy Galore. Early voting starts tomorrow here in Ohio, and I'm sure that Access Hollywood video will be fresh on a lot of Buckeyes' minds. Although all of the polls have suggested a dead heat in the race for our 18 electoral votes, that may not be the case if Hillary banks a bunch of early votes from voters disgusted by that video.

Our freshman Republican senator, though, has nothing to worry about in his re-election. Rob Portman has had the great fortune of running against our former governor, Ted Strickland, who can't even pretend that he wants to be in the U.S. Senate. But in states like New Hampshire and Wisconsin, that have a real Senate race, the DNC and the DSCC can use the miles and miles of TV footage of their senators calling Drumpf "genius" and "role model".

The GOP donors already dumped Drumpf a long time ago. They're just focused on trying to protect the Republican majorities in the Senate and House.