Wait, has a president running for re-election ever turfed a sitting VP? And if he wanted to, would that mean the party would have to hold a full nomination process, primaries and all? (Aren’t sitting presidents normally handed the second-term nomination on a platter?)
My prediction for next chief of staff: Ted Nugent.
I wish I were joking.
3 Likes
It’s my understanding that the sitting president is usually considered such a strong candidate for re-election that they’re rarely challenged for the nomination, so it’s basically served on a platter. George HW Bush is an example of an exception, as he was challenged by Pat Buchanan for re-election (though he ended up getting the nomination, and then losing).
4 Likes
Donald loves to fire people if they don’t show 100% loyalty. He made the comment recently that he was looking for loyalty from Pence and made him affirm it publicly. He usually does this just before he gets rid of folks…and the folks that he gets rid of usually grovel which gives them a few more months. Luckily, he can’t FIRE Pence, but he can just run without him.
As an Indiana native with a lot of Republican friends, about half the folks that voted on the right hated him…but they hated him less than some pinko commie that wants strong unions, and people getting paid fairly, and folks getting equal access to the ballot box. Because most of these poor people that vote on the right are only temporarily disadvantaged millionaires waiting for the policies to kick them to the next level. So…no pinko commies, even if they absolutely hated Pence.
1 Like
Interesting link but what still remains unclear to me is the mechanics of it.
Let’s say, hypothetically, that Trump wants to run in 2020 without Pence, installing the perfect lickspittle in his place. Let’s assume there are no challengers for the presidential nomination, à la Buchanan in '92.
Would this move trigger a full nomination process? Or would the party just say “ok, now the ticket is Trump-Scaramucci” or whatever?
Huh. They skipped Abraham Lincoln.
Hannibal Hamlin (1861–1865)
Andrew Johnson (1865)
Johnson, a Democrat for the Nation Union ticket, was a Trump-level unfortunate choice, in hindsight.
2 Likes
I just read a great article on that election and its role in setting the stage for the current disaster:
The GOP convention delegates would have to approve the VP candidate no matter what. While the Presidential candidate’s desires count for a lot, the process involves a lot of back-room wheeling-dealing and calculations concerning the value (geographic, ideological, etc.) the VP candidate will bring to the ticket in the general election.
The modern GOP has proved itself a bunch of opportunists and cowards in their enabling of Il Douche’s autocratic impulses, but ultimately they want to win. So I doubt that they’d rubber-stamp just anyone.
3 Likes
The 25th amendment states -
" Section 2 states that in the event of a vice-presidential vacancy, the president will nominate a vice president who will be confirmed by a majority Congressional vote." -
source - https://www.history.com/topics/united-states-constitution/25th-amendment
This is basically what happened when Agnew resigned mid term and Nixon named Gerald Ford as VP.
2 Likes
But that’s not the process for changing a VP candidate during an election, which is what @Espresso was asking about.
They still have the primaries even with a sitting President. They just don’t put that much money into it.
1 Like
Funny thing. Supposedly if you took the recent midterm election. And mapped the results to the electoral college. Based on current rules for how states distribute their electoral votes.
You would have a pretty safe win for the Democratic candidate.
Trump started from a losing margin and only won based on a technicality. With numbers so tight you couldn’t expect to repeat the performance. For him to get a second term he has to increase his support. And that is sure as shit not what’s happening.
The full nomination process happens anyway. On a schedule. Whether he ditches Pence or not.
For his relection bid the president will always face a primary. Although it’s usually not contested. Except by minor challengers. I’d expect more serious challenges against Trump.
The VP doesn’t get voted in during the primary, we used to do it (sorta) that way, before the modern primary structure. Now they’re usually selected by the candidate typically after the primaries or once there is an obvious winner. And are voted on by delgates at the convention during the formal nomination process.
Technically the party delgates select the VP, but the way our primaries work most of those delegates will be tied to the primary winner and thus will vote for the primary winner’s selection.
Exact same thing happens if he tries a different VP as if he sticks with Pence. The process happens on a 4 year schedule regardless of whether a sitting president is involved. It just usually doesn’t matter much when there is.
If the VP dies, resigns or otherwise leaves office the president appoints a replacement subject to Congressional approval. That’s how we got Ford. Spiro Agnew resigned. Congress basically refused to approve anyone but Ford. So Nixon appointed him.
Or decrease the access of the opposition to the polls. See Georgia.
The don’t have to do it everywhere, just in enough states to tip the balance.
The supression and manipulation is definitely an issue. And I think it played a much bigger role than “working class” voters “switching” parties.
But again from this past midterm it wasn’t exactly enough. A good number of those house pickups were heavily gerrymandered districts. And house and significant state level wins happened in plenty of gerrymandered states with supression issues. Many of the most important state pickups were direct responses to gerrymandering and voter supression. And we’re watching a case in NC right now where it’s likely outright vote theft couldn’t create a clear win for the GOP.
High turnout, even not particularly high turnout, is more than enough to overcome the advantage the GOP have built for themselves. And most of those states with new DNC influence or control involved candidates who are unfriendly to electoral manipulation. More states voted for voting rights than supression on ballot initiatives. While our new house is already signalling voting rights as a big issue they’re planning to push. They’ve got investigative powers and at least one case in the headlines in need of investigation.
So we’re probably looking at a much different situation for 2020.
It looks very much like politicians are finally going to make noise about this issue. That it wasn’t a major part of the 2016 campaign and platform is one of my bigger disappointments with the DNC. And I think one of their bigger mistakes. They didn’t even try to turn it into a major campaign issue, and they absolutely failed to account for or deal with it.
2 Likes
BWAHAHAHAHA…
9 Likes
5 Likes
8 Likes
I guess there’s a certain logic to the idea considering that Jared is so entangled in Trump’s affairs already that there’s not much left for him to do other than try to enjoy the rest of the ride.
9 Likes
I’m not a lawyer or anything, but I think that President hiring their relatives for WH positions is explicitly illegal. Ie., Jared and Ivanka can be nebulously defined “advisers”, but they can’t become the CoS.
3 Likes
You’re absolutely right that there’s a law in place that other Presidents have interpreted as preventing them from hiring their relatives. But as with many things that are commonly accepted – such as the law preventing presidents from profiting from foreign investments – Trump says it doesn’t apply to him and he doesn’t care anyway; since Jared doesn’t take a salary he’s defined as a ‘volunteer’, so he could just as well be a ‘volunteer’ Chief of Staff.
3 Likes
At this point I have to wonder if he’s just calling all the old contestants on his show.
7 Likes
