A lot of chatter this morning about replacing Biden. How likely is this, and can it even be realistically attempted without Biden stepping aside? Does he resign as President now and give Harris a boost for the nomination and a modicum of incumbency advantage?
I stayed up to watch and was appalled. On last night's showing I think a case could be made for removing Biden now. The idea that anyone could, in all honesty, see the man in front of the cameras seven hours ago and think he could or should be allowed another four years beggars belief.
The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation news is playing this as a loss for Biden of which he has to recover. Biden seemed addled.
FWIW, it’s common for the incumbent to be viewed as the loser in the first debate. Trump was seen as the loser in the first 2020 debate, as was Obama in 2012, Reagan in 1984, and I think George W. Bush in 2004.
That said, the clips I’ve heard did not inspire confidence in Biden. I’m sitting in a coffee shop and can overhear some old men (well, older than me) talking about the debate. One said “Biden looked like a lost dog.” I’ve heard these same men before talk about how completely untrustworthy Trump is. They are currently speculating that Biden may not ultimately be the candidate. When it was suggested Kamala Harris might replace Biden as the candidate, the response was “we’ll really be in trouble then.” (It wasn’t quite clear to me whether “we” is the country or the Democratic Party.) “We need a leader,” another said.
There will be no need for Biden to resign the presidency. It would not give Ms Harris any advantage of incumbency since it would not give her enough time to establish her own record.
Technically, if Biden would withdraw his candidacy, it would release the delegates to the convention who had been pledged to him. Then it would become a wide-open convention. Since no one other than RFK jr ran against him, it would be a process of accepting nominations from the floor and likely numerous votes until the nominee is selected.
There was one question in last night's debacle that I had wished Biden would have responded too. The question about him being too old. He said most of his political career he had been told he was too young, now he is too old. I think he meant to make that a question, But it did not come off that way.
What I wished he would have said, "If, for some reason, I am incapacitated during the next term, I will have someone capable of taking over the office in my stead."
I think it is likely that if Biden is not the candidate, Trump will almost certainly win the election. It is very late to start a viable campaign. What is most important is to defeat Trump.
I think it is likely that if Biden is not the candidate, Trump will almost certainly win the election. It is very late to start a viable campaign. What is most important is to defeat Trump.
It doesn't look good from this side of the Pond. A performance like Biden's looks like a match-loser, unless you are convinced his support base is robust enough to deal with it.
A serial liar on the one hand and an incoherent octogenarian on the other.
A serial liar on the one hand and an incoherent octogenarian on the other.
In fairness, Trump criticized Biden's mideast policy by saying "He didn't stop Israel", which, given Trump's consistently pro-Israel position, was equally as incoherent as Biden's "We finally beat medicare".
I think what Biden actually said—I watched about 15 minutes of it, about halfway through—was good. I just wanted to give him a glass of water.
I am utterly baffled and disturbed by the idea that anyone is undecided between these two.
You mean you missed the discussion about who is the better golfer? Biden claimed as VP he got his handicap down to 4. When challenged Biden said it had been at an 8. But Biden challenged Trump to a round provided Trump carried his own bags. Trump immediately closed off the discussion by saying, "Let's stop being children."
To Nick's point about the incumbent usually losing the first debate, what I saw last night reminded me about the Nixon v Kenedy debate. Yes, I can remember that. Reading the transcripts alone, Nixon won, but what people saw of TV sealed the outcome. That's what I think happened last night.
To Nick's point about the incumbent usually losing the first debate, what I saw last night reminded me about the Nixon v Kenedy debate. Yes, I can remember that. Reading the transcripts alone, Nixon won, but what people saw of TV sealed the outcome. That's what I think happened last night.
I was more reminded of the first Reagan-Mondale debate, which Reagan lost badly. I'm sure we are all fondly looking back at the administration of President Mondale.
To Nick's point about the incumbent usually losing the first debate, what I saw last night reminded me about the Nixon v Kenedy debate. Yes, I can remember that. Reading the transcripts alone, Nixon won, but what people saw of TV sealed the outcome. That's what I think happened last night.
I was more reminded of the first Reagan-Mondale debate, which Reagan lost badly. I'm sure we are all fondly looking back at the administration of President Mondale.
You mean where Reagan said he would not want Mondale's youth to be a problem?
That was the one line that sealed Mondale's fate, though I would say looking back at that debate maybe Reagan was starting to have cognitive issues.
To Nick's point about the incumbent usually losing the first debate, what I saw last night reminded me about the Nixon v Kenedy debate. Yes, I can remember that. Reading the transcripts alone, Nixon won, but what people saw of TV sealed the outcome. That's what I think happened last night.
I was more reminded of the first Reagan-Mondale debate, which Reagan lost badly. I'm sure we are all fondly looking back at the administration of President Mondale.
You mean where Reagan said he would not want Mondale's youth to be a problem?
That was the one line that sealed Mondale's fate, though I would say looking back at that debate maybe Reagan was starting to have cognitive issues.
No, that was the second Reagan-Mondale debate. Reagan's confusion during the first debate had led to speculation about the mental state of the man who was, at the time, the oldest president in American history. Hence Reagan's choice of zinger in the second debate was intended, at least in part, to de-fang such speculations.
Well, I do think people were wondering about Reagan's cognitive decline by his second term.
Anyway, back to the present.
I guess his rally in North Carolina, Biden was more to form. He reportedly admitted to falling flat on his face during the debate, but he said he was not about to withdraw his name.
Should that happen, though, I can think of five potential nominees out there.
Kamala Harris. As the VP, she has been present through many of the present administration decisions. She should be able to quickly pick up the ball.
Gavin Newsom. The governor of California, the most populous and diverse state in the union. Has a strong environmental record.
Gretchen Whittier, Michigan governor. Helped to bring back the industrial base to Michigan. Has handled several state health issues. Has also gone up against MAGA crowds.
Cory Booker, senior senator from New Jersey. Has been able to work across the aisle to get some important bi partisan legislation done.
Roy Cooper. A dark horse. Govenor of North Carolina. Has brought NC from bright red to pink in the last couple of elections. Govenor of a southern state
There may be others. Is Bernie too old? He is one year older than Biden. Elizabeth Warren is also a maybe; but she is 75, a week younger than me.
We will see how the polls break next week.
BTW I did listen to one commentator on MSNBC this afternoon who said with Trump being a habitual liar, nearly everyone would have a problem countering him. She said the format favored Trump because there was no way to fact check what he was saying. Speaking from experience, I know it is hard to counter a narcissist's lies.
Biden should have announced many months ago that he would not be standing again. He needs to be replaced ASAP.
This evening an MSNBC commentator said the only way Biden will withdraw is if his wife can convince him it is time to retire.
I blame the Democrats as well
@Telford, American parties don’t function the same way British parties do. The Democratic Party can’t just say “Yeah, we’re going with someone else.” Biden will be the Democratic nominee unless he decides to step down and release the convention delegates committed to him as a result of the primaries. There’s really no other mechanism for replacing him, short of some kind of party coup.
If party leadership had control over selecting the candidate, Trump would not have been the Republican nominee in 2016.
Biden should have announced many months ago that he would not be standing again. He needs to be replaced ASAP.
This evening an MSNBC commentator said the only way Biden will withdraw is if his wife can convince him it is time to retire.
I blame the Democrats as well
@Telford, American parties don’t function the same way British parties do. The Democratic Party can’t just say “Yeah, we’re going with someone else.” Biden will be the Democratic nominee unless he decides to step down and release the convention delegates committed to him as a result of the primaries. There’s really no other mechanism for replacing him, short of some kind of party coup.
If party leadership had control over selecting the candidate, Trump would not have been the Republican nominee in 2016.
Biden should have announced many months ago that he would not be standing again. He needs to be replaced ASAP.
This evening an MSNBC commentator said the only way Biden will withdraw is if his wife can convince him it is time to retire.
I blame the Democrats as well
@Telford, American parties don’t function the same way British parties do. The Democratic Party can’t just say “Yeah, we’re going with someone else.” Biden will be the Democratic nominee unless he decides to step down and release the convention delegates committed to him as a result of the primaries. There’s really no other mechanism for replacing him, short of some kind of party coup.
If party leadership had control over selecting the candidate, Trump would not have been the Republican nominee in 2016.
I never mentioned Party Leadership.
So you mean Democrats shouldn't have voted for him in the primaries and caucuses?
Biden should have announced many months ago that he would not be standing again. He needs to be replaced ASAP.
This evening an MSNBC commentator said the only way Biden will withdraw is if his wife can convince him it is time to retire.
I blame the Democrats as well
@Telford, American parties don’t function the same way British parties do. The Democratic Party can’t just say “Yeah, we’re going with someone else.” Biden will be the Democratic nominee unless he decides to step down and release the convention delegates committed to him as a result of the primaries. There’s really no other mechanism for replacing him, short of some kind of party coup.
If party leadership had control over selecting the candidate, Trump would not have been the Republican nominee in 2016.
I never mentioned Party Leadership.
You said he needs to be “replaced.” There’s no mechanism for that unless he decides to step down.
Biden should have announced many months ago that he would not be standing again. He needs to be replaced ASAP.
This evening an MSNBC commentator said the only way Biden will withdraw is if his wife can convince him it is time to retire.
I blame the Democrats as well
@Telford, American parties don’t function the same way British parties do. The Democratic Party can’t just say “Yeah, we’re going with someone else.” Biden will be the Democratic nominee unless he decides to step down and release the convention delegates committed to him as a result of the primaries. There’s really no other mechanism for replacing him, short of some kind of party coup.
If party leadership had control over selecting the candidate, Trump would not have been the Republican nominee in 2016.
I never mentioned Party Leadership.
You said he needs to be “replaced.” There’s no mechanism for that unless he decides to step down.
Biden should have announced many months ago that he would not be standing again. He needs to be replaced ASAP.
This evening an MSNBC commentator said the only way Biden will withdraw is if his wife can convince him it is time to retire.
I blame the Democrats as well
@Telford, American parties don’t function the same way British parties do. The Democratic Party can’t just say “Yeah, we’re going with someone else.” Biden will be the Democratic nominee unless he decides to step down and release the convention delegates committed to him as a result of the primaries. There’s really no other mechanism for replacing him, short of some kind of party coup.
If party leadership had control over selecting the candidate, Trump would not have been the Republican nominee in 2016.
I never mentioned Party Leadership.
You said he needs to be “replaced.” There’s no mechanism for that unless he decides to step down.
Well there should be
A: I can't believe some of the sermons I hear in Baptist churches. I blame the Pope.
Biden should have announced many months ago that he would not be standing again. He needs to be replaced ASAP.
This evening an MSNBC commentator said the only way Biden will withdraw is if his wife can convince him it is time to retire.
I blame the Democrats as well
@Telford, American parties don’t function the same way British parties do. The Democratic Party can’t just say “Yeah, we’re going with someone else.” Biden will be the Democratic nominee unless he decides to step down and release the convention delegates committed to him as a result of the primaries. There’s really no other mechanism for replacing him, short of some kind of party coup.
If party leadership had control over selecting the candidate, Trump would not have been the Republican nominee in 2016.
I never mentioned Party Leadership.
You said he needs to be “replaced.” There’s no mechanism for that unless he decides to step down.
Well there should be
So what method would you propose for the Democratic Party to override the will of voters in all 50 states, the District of Columbia and the territories who, through the Democratic primaries and caucuses, have already chosen Biden as the Democratic Party’s nominee?
It really isn't a good idea for ignorant Brits to make sweeping remarks about US politics. Our own politics are bad enough, and some of us don't really understand them, either.
That said, we can only hope that the US manages to get through this crisis, preferably (for everyone's sake) without electing Trump 2...
The biggest headache for the Democrats is that now a fairly large chunk of their support is out-and-out saying "Biden should not be the nominee". This is hardly the basis for a winning campaign. Given they have no confident plan for successfully replacing him it seems deeply unwise at this stage. They should double-down on him and give it their best shot.
The biggest headache for the Democrats is that now a fairly large chunk of their support is out-and-out saying "Biden should not be the nominee".
Interestingly, though, I seem to be hearing a lot more Democrats saying that they're worried other people will no longer vote for Biden, then I am hearing people saying that they, themselves, will not vote for Biden.
The US has a very robust succession system. It does not matter in the slightest if a president is infirmed in any way at any stage of his/her term.
The president dies: The VP is sworn in until the next election (and there's a specific mechanism for them to appoint a VP).
The president knows they are no longer capable, they make use of the 25th Amendment to step down temporarily or they resign to step down permanently.
The president is not capable but doesn't acknowledge it, there are two mechanisms to remove them.
The problem is politics. Kamala Harris is deeply unpopular. I wonder why that would be?
Technically, the cabinet can also remove the president temporary through the 25th amendment if the president is incapacitated. One of the lawyers can better explain this than I can.
But this does not apply necessarily to the nominating system of the individual parties. Historically, there had been a time when only the state party leadership would have named their choice and then, in national convention, the hacks would have named the ultimate nominee. However, in recent times, the parties have tried to be more democratic--I think this happened after the 1968 Democratic Convention--the state party system changed, giving the ability to make the choice to the people belonging to the party each state.
There had been a time in the Democratic Party in which a group of "Super Delegates" which was a remnant of the old state party system that could intervene, but that was eliminated after Clinton got the nomination over Bernie.
This might be a issue for further consideration after this election.
I think that's probably pretty obvious, forgive me. She's a) a woman and b) not white. The past eight years have made it really clear that large numbers of voters still have their heads where the sun don't shine on these issues.
The VP position is traditionally one where people get overlooked (at least their personal qualities) and it was always highly unlikely that by putting her in that role, she would be able to earn enough social capital to help her get over those two disabilities. She's just not visible enough.
IMHO the primary problem with having a president known to be deficient in any way is that our enemies take note and go for the weak spot. While we do have a succession plan, in practice we have major difficulty implementing it when the president-in-power resists, as with Trump in his moral lunacy. Even on Jan. 6 the 25th didn't get invoked, and that seemed like a no-brainer to me.
I think that's probably pretty obvious, forgive me. She's a) a woman and b) not white. The past eight years have made it really clear that large numbers of voters still have their heads where the sun don't shine on these issues.
The VP position is traditionally one where people get overlooked (at least their personal qualities) and it was always highly unlikely that by putting her in that role, she would be able to earn enough social capital to help her get over those two disabilities. She's just not visible enough.
IMHO the primary problem with having a president known to be deficient in any way is that our enemies take note and go for the weak spot. While we do have a succession plan, in practice we have major difficulty implementing it when the president-in-power resists, as with Trump in his moral lunacy. Even on Jan. 6 the 25th didn't get invoked, and that seemed like a no-brainer to me.
@Lamb Chopped I do not care for Harris, it has nothing to do with the fact she is a woman and non-white. She just has not said or done anything much that inspires me. Indeed it may be because she is in the VP position of not getting much attention.
I think that's probably pretty obvious, forgive me. She's a) a woman and b) not white. The past eight years have made it really clear that large numbers of voters still have their heads where the sun don't shine on these issues.
Kamala Harris as VP has been a complete nothing-burger. You could attribute some of that to racist sexist elements in the press not covering whatever she's done successfully, but it's mostly because she hasn't been given much of significance to do. Being tasked with "fixing immigration" is an obvious poison pill, because the only answer that will satisfy the majority of people is "magically make the world different from how it is".
@Lamb Chopped I do not care for Harris, it has nothing to do with the fact she is a woman and non-white. She just has not said or done anything much that inspires me. Indeed it may be because she is in the VP position of not getting much attention.
We may be putting the wagon before the horse here.
I think Harris was being prepared for 2028 more than taking over the reins immediately, though she would have if Biden died or was incapacitated while in office.
The first two years as VP was rough for Harris, I grant. She did not get along with administrative staff, she seemed to overstep her authority (which is not much, other than breaking tie votes in the Senate), but I think she has found her lane now. She has represented the administration in a number of negotiations with congress. She sits in on cabinet meetings and gives good input on matters affecting minorities--at least this is what cabinet members are saying to the press.
This would have been expected from any sophomore politician.
Personally, I think she would have had the skills to take on a narcissist like Trump. She would not have had to try to remember all the things Biden was crammed with. She would have been able to throw the playbook out the window and attack Trump head on.
Besides, you know how Trump hates strong women--calling them Nasty people. A former prosecutor would have hung Trump out to dry with all the civil and criminal convictions and charges against him (yes, Biden had been a prosecutor at one time in the distant past--that started to show toward the end of the debacle, I mean debate.)
For now, it remains between Biden and Trump, though.
To use a baseball analogy. Biden has three chances to hit the ball out of the park. His first strike was way off. He has two more chances. If misses the second chance which would be in the national convention, then we will definitely be in trouble.
I think that's probably pretty obvious, forgive me. She's a) a woman and b) not white. The past eight years have made it really clear that large numbers of voters still have their heads where the sun don't shine on these issues.
Kamala Harris as VP has been a complete nothing-burger. You could attribute some of that to racist sexist elements in the press not covering whatever she's done successfully, but it's mostly because she hasn't been given much of significance to do.
This may have been asked earlier, but what might happen if Trump dies/is sent to jail/becomes incapacitated before the end of the election process?
If he's in prison it matters not. Whilst he cannot vote, there is no restriction on becoming president. Many would argue that being incarcerated is grounds for impeachment though on the basis that he cannot do the job.
Incapacitation or death: Timing is the key. Pre-convention, the party can simply choose another nominee. Post convention it's more messy. Post election and before taking office, it's in the hands of the electoral college / Congress / SCOTUS. I don't know what the constitution actually says on this one...
The idea that a person in jail can actually be President is hard for this Englishman to grasp, though I imagine a post-election impeachment process would be complex and messy...
Doing a bit of research I find that only a 1981 act prohibits someone in jail for more than a year from being an MP. Also bankrupts cannot stand for Parliament, which seems rather unfair to me. What if you're bankrupt due to something the previous government has done?
Incapacitation or death: Timing is the key. Pre-convention, the party can simply choose another nominee. Post convention it's more messy. Post election and before taking office, it's in the hands of the electoral college / Congress / SCOTUS. I don't know what the constitution actually says on this one...
There are a couple of possibilities for when a presidential candidate dies between the general election and inauguration. None of these theories has been legally tested, so caveat lector. Timing is, of course, key. If a candidate dies after the general election (5 November 2024) but before the electoral college votes (17 December 2024), the presidential electors would theoretically be free to cast their ballots for another candidate. Some electors may be restrained by faithless elector laws, but those have never been tested in the case where the designated candidate was dead (and thus Constitutionally ineligible for the presidency).
If the candidate dies between the time the electoral votes are cast and the time Congress certifies the electoral vote (6 January 2025) things get a little trickier as there are two plausible interpretations of what happens. The first possibility is that Congress certifies that the dead candidate has been elected president. This means that there will be a vacancy in the presidency on inauguration day (20 January 2025) and the normal rules of presidential succession apply and the new vice president would be sworn in as president. (Unless the presidential candidate and their running mate were in the same plane crash.)
The second possible interpretation is that Congress says that the electoral votes for the dead candidate are invalid. Being dead is just as much a Constitutional bar to the presidency as being younger than 35 years old, being a non-citizen, or being an oathbreaking insurrectionist. In that case either the second place vote-getter becomes president (if the electoral votes for the dead candidate are discarded entirely) or there is no winner (if the electoral votes are counted as ballots but considered invalid). In the case of no electoral vote winner the presidency is decided in a contingent election in the House of Representatives with each state voting by caucuses. Note that in a contingent election the House can only choose the president from the top three electoral vote getters, so that may very well mean their only choice is the second place finisher.
If the president-elect dies between Congress certifying the electoral vote and inauguration day then there is simply a vacancy in the presidency and normal presidential succession would take place.
The idea that a person in jail can actually be President is hard for this Englishman to grasp, though I imagine a post-election impeachment process would be complex and messy...
It gets trickier than that. In the American system impeachment is only for abuses of official powers, so it would depend on what the convict president was convicted of. In Trump's case it's arguable that his felony convictions in New York state court probably don't qualify, though the insurrection plot and stolen secrets cases probably would.
I would argue that a convicted president serving a custodial sentence would fall under the Twenty-Fifth Amendment's clause about a president "unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office" and that would be the appropriate Constitutional remedy for such a situation.
Let me just say, once again, that the way the U.S. elects its presidents is completely insane. It is not only cumbersome and sometimes vomits up second place finishers into the Oval Office, it's highly vulnerable to being gamed by bad faith actors.
Doing a bit of research I find that only a 1981 act prohibits someone in jail for more than a year from being an MP. Also bankrupts cannot stand for Parliament, which seems rather unfair to me. What if you're bankrupt due to something the previous government has done?
I was wondering if @Bishops Finger meant it was legally bizarre OR culturally bizarre, that a jailbird can be elected president in the USA.
Legally, if there was nothing to stop Bobby Sands from getting elected to parliament, I'd assume there'd be no barriers to his getting into cabinet. Whether people in the UK would be willing to vote for a candidate from a party headed by a prisoner is the cultural question.
EDIT: Just noticed in Turquoise's post that long-term prisoners WERE banned from the HoC in 1981. So I guess it is now illegal, at least for the long-haulers. Though one wonders what eg. Farage's fans would do if he got sentenced to less than a year, and stood for election near the beginning of his stint. (To take the demographic probably closest to MAGA.)
Comments
God help America.
That said, the clips I’ve heard did not inspire confidence in Biden. I’m sitting in a coffee shop and can overhear some old men (well, older than me) talking about the debate. One said “Biden looked like a lost dog.” I’ve heard these same men before talk about how completely untrustworthy Trump is. They are currently speculating that Biden may not ultimately be the candidate. When it was suggested Kamala Harris might replace Biden as the candidate, the response was “we’ll really be in trouble then.” (It wasn’t quite clear to me whether “we” is the country or the Democratic Party.) “We need a leader,” another said.
It’s going to be a long haul to November.
Technically, if Biden would withdraw his candidacy, it would release the delegates to the convention who had been pledged to him. Then it would become a wide-open convention. Since no one other than RFK jr ran against him, it would be a process of accepting nominations from the floor and likely numerous votes until the nominee is selected.
There was one question in last night's debacle that I had wished Biden would have responded too. The question about him being too old. He said most of his political career he had been told he was too young, now he is too old. I think he meant to make that a question, But it did not come off that way.
What I wished he would have said, "If, for some reason, I am incapacitated during the next term, I will have someone capable of taking over the office in my stead."
A serial liar on the one hand and an incoherent octogenarian on the other.
Rock. Hard Place.
Devil. Deep Blue Sea.
In fairness, Trump criticized Biden's mideast policy by saying "He didn't stop Israel", which, given Trump's consistently pro-Israel position, was equally as incoherent as Biden's "We finally beat medicare".
You mean you missed the discussion about who is the better golfer? Biden claimed as VP he got his handicap down to 4. When challenged Biden said it had been at an 8. But Biden challenged Trump to a round provided Trump carried his own bags. Trump immediately closed off the discussion by saying, "Let's stop being children."
To Nick's point about the incumbent usually losing the first debate, what I saw last night reminded me about the Nixon v Kenedy debate. Yes, I can remember that. Reading the transcripts alone, Nixon won, but what people saw of TV sealed the outcome. That's what I think happened last night.
I was more reminded of the first Reagan-Mondale debate, which Reagan lost badly. I'm sure we are all fondly looking back at the administration of President Mondale.
You mean where Reagan said he would not want Mondale's youth to be a problem?
That was the one line that sealed Mondale's fate, though I would say looking back at that debate maybe Reagan was starting to have cognitive issues.
Myself, I would prefer Mondale at the time.
No, that was the second Reagan-Mondale debate. Reagan's confusion during the first debate had led to speculation about the mental state of the man who was, at the time, the oldest president in American history. Hence Reagan's choice of zinger in the second debate was intended, at least in part, to de-fang such speculations.
Anyway, back to the present.
I guess his rally in North Carolina, Biden was more to form. He reportedly admitted to falling flat on his face during the debate, but he said he was not about to withdraw his name.
Should that happen, though, I can think of five potential nominees out there.
Roy Cooper. A dark horse. Govenor of North Carolina. Has brought NC from bright red to pink in the last couple of elections. Govenor of a southern state
There may be others. Is Bernie too old? He is one year older than Biden. Elizabeth Warren is also a maybe; but she is 75, a week younger than me.
We will see how the polls break next week.
BTW I did listen to one commentator on MSNBC this afternoon who said with Trump being a habitual liar, nearly everyone would have a problem countering him. She said the format favored Trump because there was no way to fact check what he was saying. Speaking from experience, I know it is hard to counter a narcissist's lies.
This evening an MSNBC commentator said the only way Biden will withdraw is if his wife can convince him it is time to retire.
I blame the Democrats as well
How so?
Murc's law.
If party leadership had control over selecting the candidate, Trump would not have been the Republican nominee in 2016.
So you mean Democrats shouldn't have voted for him in the primaries and caucuses?
A: I can't believe some of the sermons I hear in Baptist churches. I blame the Pope.
B: There is no Baptist Pope.
A: Well there should be.
That said, we can only hope that the US manages to get through this crisis, preferably (for everyone's sake) without electing Trump 2...
Interestingly, though, I seem to be hearing a lot more Democrats saying that they're worried other people will no longer vote for Biden, then I am hearing people saying that they, themselves, will not vote for Biden.
The US has a very robust succession system. It does not matter in the slightest if a president is infirmed in any way at any stage of his/her term.
The president dies: The VP is sworn in until the next election (and there's a specific mechanism for them to appoint a VP).
The president knows they are no longer capable, they make use of the 25th Amendment to step down temporarily or they resign to step down permanently.
The president is not capable but doesn't acknowledge it, there are two mechanisms to remove them.
The problem is politics. Kamala Harris is deeply unpopular. I wonder why that would be?
AFZ
But this does not apply necessarily to the nominating system of the individual parties. Historically, there had been a time when only the state party leadership would have named their choice and then, in national convention, the hacks would have named the ultimate nominee. However, in recent times, the parties have tried to be more democratic--I think this happened after the 1968 Democratic Convention--the state party system changed, giving the ability to make the choice to the people belonging to the party each state.
There had been a time in the Democratic Party in which a group of "Super Delegates" which was a remnant of the old state party system that could intervene, but that was eliminated after Clinton got the nomination over Bernie.
This might be a issue for further consideration after this election.
The VP position is traditionally one where people get overlooked (at least their personal qualities) and it was always highly unlikely that by putting her in that role, she would be able to earn enough social capital to help her get over those two disabilities. She's just not visible enough.
IMHO the primary problem with having a president known to be deficient in any way is that our enemies take note and go for the weak spot. While we do have a succession plan, in practice we have major difficulty implementing it when the president-in-power resists, as with Trump in his moral lunacy. Even on Jan. 6 the 25th didn't get invoked, and that seemed like a no-brainer to me.
Indeed.
Please forgive my sarcasm.
Kamala Harris as VP has been a complete nothing-burger. You could attribute some of that to racist sexist elements in the press not covering whatever she's done successfully, but it's mostly because she hasn't been given much of significance to do. Being tasked with "fixing immigration" is an obvious poison pill, because the only answer that will satisfy the majority of people is "magically make the world different from how it is".
We may be putting the wagon before the horse here.
I think Harris was being prepared for 2028 more than taking over the reins immediately, though she would have if Biden died or was incapacitated while in office.
The first two years as VP was rough for Harris, I grant. She did not get along with administrative staff, she seemed to overstep her authority (which is not much, other than breaking tie votes in the Senate), but I think she has found her lane now. She has represented the administration in a number of negotiations with congress. She sits in on cabinet meetings and gives good input on matters affecting minorities--at least this is what cabinet members are saying to the press.
This would have been expected from any sophomore politician.
Personally, I think she would have had the skills to take on a narcissist like Trump. She would not have had to try to remember all the things Biden was crammed with. She would have been able to throw the playbook out the window and attack Trump head on.
Besides, you know how Trump hates strong women--calling them Nasty people. A former prosecutor would have hung Trump out to dry with all the civil and criminal convictions and charges against him (yes, Biden had been a prosecutor at one time in the distant past--that started to show toward the end of the debacle, I mean debate.)
For now, it remains between Biden and Trump, though.
To use a baseball analogy. Biden has three chances to hit the ball out of the park. His first strike was way off. He has two more chances. If misses the second chance which would be in the national convention, then we will definitely be in trouble.
If he's in prison it matters not. Whilst he cannot vote, there is no restriction on becoming president. Many would argue that being incarcerated is grounds for impeachment though on the basis that he cannot do the job.
Incapacitation or death: Timing is the key. Pre-convention, the party can simply choose another nominee. Post convention it's more messy. Post election and before taking office, it's in the hands of the electoral college / Congress / SCOTUS. I don't know what the constitution actually says on this one...
The idea that a person in jail can actually be President is hard for this Englishman to grasp, though I imagine a post-election impeachment process would be complex and messy...
There are a couple of possibilities for when a presidential candidate dies between the general election and inauguration. None of these theories has been legally tested, so caveat lector. Timing is, of course, key. If a candidate dies after the general election (5 November 2024) but before the electoral college votes (17 December 2024), the presidential electors would theoretically be free to cast their ballots for another candidate. Some electors may be restrained by faithless elector laws, but those have never been tested in the case where the designated candidate was dead (and thus Constitutionally ineligible for the presidency).
If the candidate dies between the time the electoral votes are cast and the time Congress certifies the electoral vote (6 January 2025) things get a little trickier as there are two plausible interpretations of what happens. The first possibility is that Congress certifies that the dead candidate has been elected president. This means that there will be a vacancy in the presidency on inauguration day (20 January 2025) and the normal rules of presidential succession apply and the new vice president would be sworn in as president. (Unless the presidential candidate and their running mate were in the same plane crash.)
The second possible interpretation is that Congress says that the electoral votes for the dead candidate are invalid. Being dead is just as much a Constitutional bar to the presidency as being younger than 35 years old, being a non-citizen, or being an oathbreaking insurrectionist. In that case either the second place vote-getter becomes president (if the electoral votes for the dead candidate are discarded entirely) or there is no winner (if the electoral votes are counted as ballots but considered invalid). In the case of no electoral vote winner the presidency is decided in a contingent election in the House of Representatives with each state voting by caucuses. Note that in a contingent election the House can only choose the president from the top three electoral vote getters, so that may very well mean their only choice is the second place finisher.
If the president-elect dies between Congress certifying the electoral vote and inauguration day then there is simply a vacancy in the presidency and normal presidential succession would take place.
It gets trickier than that. In the American system impeachment is only for abuses of official powers, so it would depend on what the convict president was convicted of. In Trump's case it's arguable that his felony convictions in New York state court probably don't qualify, though the insurrection plot and stolen secrets cases probably would.
I would argue that a convicted president serving a custodial sentence would fall under the Twenty-Fifth Amendment's clause about a president "unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office" and that would be the appropriate Constitutional remedy for such a situation.
I was wondering if @Bishops Finger meant it was legally bizarre OR culturally bizarre, that a jailbird can be elected president in the USA.
Legally, if there was nothing to stop Bobby Sands from getting elected to parliament, I'd assume there'd be no barriers to his getting into cabinet. Whether people in the UK would be willing to vote for a candidate from a party headed by a prisoner is the cultural question.
EDIT: Just noticed in Turquoise's post that long-term prisoners WERE banned from the HoC in 1981. So I guess it is now illegal, at least for the long-haulers. Though one wonders what eg. Farage's fans would do if he got sentenced to less than a year, and stood for election near the beginning of his stint. (To take the demographic probably closest to MAGA.)
Dancing in the streets?