Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
19 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Serious question for DUers (Original Post) malaise Sep 2012 OP
If it was the VP, I would think that the Pres candidate simply chooses again DebJ Sep 2012 #1
Thomas Eagleton in 1972. The Velveteen Ocelot Sep 2012 #2
Thanks - so the Presidential candidate chose his replacement malaise Sep 2012 #5
Yes. I remember there was a huge commotion over this. The Velveteen Ocelot Sep 2012 #8
Very informative malaise Sep 2012 #10
Interesting question. nt snappyturtle Sep 2012 #3
Suppose WiLLIARd was indicted malaise Sep 2012 #7
He can still run under indictment nt MrScorpio Sep 2012 #11
The rules are determined by the states and who would be on their ballots MrScorpio Sep 2012 #4
Thanks MrScorpio malaise Sep 2012 #6
Let's say that a dead guy got elected president because the death happened after the ballot deadline MrScorpio Sep 2012 #9
Makes sense malaise Sep 2012 #12
Not that I'm aware of, but I'm pretty sure the nominee can just appoint another one. HopeHoops Sep 2012 #13
Suppose you ended up with a President from one party malaise Sep 2012 #14
That's kind of the point. The VP has the tie breaker in the Senate, but not much else. HopeHoops Sep 2012 #15
VP's are practically powerless MrScorpio Sep 2012 #16
Wasn't this exactly the case in the earliest days of our Republic? That being snappyturtle Sep 2012 #19
It's a very good question. If Mittens is found guilty on tax invasion TBF Sep 2012 #17
Well, it would be unlikely that he would be investigated, indicted, tried and found guilty MrScorpio Sep 2012 #18

DebJ

(7,699 posts)
1. If it was the VP, I would think that the Pres candidate simply chooses again
Sat Sep 8, 2012, 10:29 AM
Sep 2012

After all, Nixon appointed Gerald Ford to the actual VP slot in 1974.
Ford became the only US President and VP never elected by the people or the electoral college
in any way, shape or form.

The Velveteen Ocelot

(115,869 posts)
2. Thomas Eagleton in 1972.
Sat Sep 8, 2012, 10:32 AM
Sep 2012
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Eagleton

It was discovered that he had been treated for depression and he was urged to withdraw, which he did. McGovern then selected Shriver.

malaise

(269,187 posts)
5. Thanks - so the Presidential candidate chose his replacement
Sat Sep 8, 2012, 10:45 AM
Sep 2012

Funny WiLLIARd hasn't even submitted his medical records let alone his tax returns

The Velveteen Ocelot

(115,869 posts)
8. Yes. I remember there was a huge commotion over this.
Sat Sep 8, 2012, 10:52 AM
Sep 2012

McGovern was having trouble getting anybody to agree to be his running mate (I think a lot of people figured the campaign was doomed), and he chose Eagleton without vetting him very carefully. Not too long afterwards it came out that he'd suffered from depression and had received electric shock treatments. The campaign thought this would be a distraction so they asked him to withdraw - after McGovern had said he'd stand by Eagleton "100%." As it turned out, the grief McGovern got for dumping Eagleton probably was more damaging than keeping him on the ticket would have been. He'd have lost anyhow, probably, but it didn't look good.

MrScorpio

(73,631 posts)
4. The rules are determined by the states and who would be on their ballots
Sat Sep 8, 2012, 10:39 AM
Sep 2012

By the time after the conventions, it would be too late to change, meaning voters could elect a dead guy as VP.

After JFK died, LBJ left the VP slot unfilled and picked HHH as his running mate for his reelection.

The frontrunner would most likely wait until they reach office if elected, and nominate a VP for approval by Congress under the 25th Amendment.

MrScorpio

(73,631 posts)
9. Let's say that a dead guy got elected president because the death happened after the ballot deadline
Sat Sep 8, 2012, 10:53 AM
Sep 2012

Then the 25th Amendment would be invoked and the VP candidate would assume the Presidency

If it happened to the losing side, then it wouldn't matter. If it happened prior to the convention, of course the ballots would be cast for either the incumbent's VP, or for the primary candidates.

Either one way or another it would be covered.

 

HopeHoops

(47,675 posts)
13. Not that I'm aware of, but I'm pretty sure the nominee can just appoint another one.
Sat Sep 8, 2012, 10:55 AM
Sep 2012

What I've always wondered about is what happens if the presidential nominee dies before the election, or between the election and the inauguration. I've read the Constitution many times, and I'm not sure it makes provisions for either case.

Frankly, I think it's time we dropped the current process. Nobody voted for Ryan, or Biden for that matter. I think the general election should be made simple. Whoever gets the most popular vote count is president, and the second in the count becomes VP. That would really throw a wrench into a machine that isn't working in the first place, but it might just jump start it.

malaise

(269,187 posts)
14. Suppose you ended up with a President from one party
Sat Sep 8, 2012, 10:57 AM
Sep 2012

and a VP from another - what with divided government in other branches, isn't that a recipe for more chaos?

 

HopeHoops

(47,675 posts)
15. That's kind of the point. The VP has the tie breaker in the Senate, but not much else.
Sat Sep 8, 2012, 11:03 AM
Sep 2012

I just think we need to get away from the stalemate. If they don't eliminate the filibuster, they should at least change the rules to require an ACTUAL filibuster instead of just the threat of one. Sanders was the last Senator to actually filibuster and he only lasted 8 hours. Thurmond holds the record - what was it, 26 hours or something? Just saying "we'll filibuster that" isn't sufficient. Having a divided White House would really shake things up. I never voted for Biden. Nobody voted for Johnson either and he became president on a plane when JFK was shot. Most local elections are decided by ranking of popular vote. I think the same should be true for the White House.

MrScorpio

(73,631 posts)
16. VP's are practically powerless
Sat Sep 8, 2012, 11:04 AM
Sep 2012

They only have three basic jobs under the Constitution, succession of sitting presidents who have been either removed from office or have died or resigned and break ties for Senate votes and serve as Senate Pro Tempore

Anything else that they do is only at the whim of the President.

snappyturtle

(14,656 posts)
19. Wasn't this exactly the case in the earliest days of our Republic? That being
Sun Sep 9, 2012, 05:38 AM
Sep 2012

the pres and vp could be from different parties?

TBF

(32,102 posts)
17. It's a very good question. If Mittens is found guilty on tax invasion
Sat Sep 8, 2012, 11:05 AM
Sep 2012

for example we'd be stuck with Ryan. That is something for folks to seriously think about before going to the polls.

MrScorpio

(73,631 posts)
18. Well, it would be unlikely that he would be investigated, indicted, tried and found guilty
Sat Sep 8, 2012, 11:14 AM
Sep 2012

All before Inaugural Day.

He'd run. NOW, if he was elected and resigned from the likelihood of a conviction or impeachment, (the possibility of a sitting Prez going to the hoosegow is pretty damn slim), Ryan would assume the presidency and do a Ford and pardon Mittens.

It's all about timing.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Serious question for DUer...