U.S. Elections: The Safe Space For People With Good Brains

[Fez]

1 hour ago, Emre Mor-mont said:

Corey Lewandowski leaves Trump campaign.

Interesting development. Could this be a sign of the Republican party establishment and Trump trying to work together more closely?

Nah. Apparently this was the result of a power struggle between Lewandoswki and Trump's kids, led by Ivanka. They wanted him gone and told Trump they'd no longer help the campaign as long as he was on board. It doesn't seem anyone else knew about this or pushed the kids to step up.

ETA: I've now seen it suggested that because this happened so quickly and without warning, that there was no severance package or non-disclosure agreement negotiated (he was on an 830am conference call with the RNC and everything seemed normal). Which means if Corey's feeling a grudge, he's feel to spill the beans about everything; including the VP vetting process he had been a part of.

[Mexal]

15 minutes ago, Fez said:

Nah. Apparently this was the result of a power struggle between Lewandoswki and Trump's kids, led by Ivanka. They wanted him gone and told Trump they'd no longer help the campaign as long as he was on board. It doesn't seem anyone else knew about this or pushed the kids to step up.

ETA: I've now seen it suggested that because this happened so quickly and without warning, that there was no severance package or non-disclosure agreement negotiated (he was on an 830am conference call with the RNC and everything seemed normal). Which means if Corey's feeling a grudge, he's feel to spill the beans about everything; including the VP vetting process he had been a part of.

Wow. This is going to get interesting then. It really sounds like he was thrown under the bus (maybe rightfully so). I can see him being vindictive in this.

[lokisnow]

so I'm guessing it's a Trump/Trump Donald/Ivanka ticket then?

[IheartIheartTesla]

I am worried we are hitting Peak Trump too soon. A dribble would suffice all the way till November, not this deluge.

[James Arryn]

13 minutes ago, lokisnow said:

so I'm guessing it's a Trump/Trump Donald/Ivanka ticket then?

Q for Mr. trump: would you date her if she weren't your VP?

[Shryke]

2 hours ago, Emre Mor-mont said:

Corey Lewandowski leaves Trump campaign.

Interesting development. Could this be a sign of the Republican party establishment and Trump trying to work together more closely?

No. It's a sign Lewandowski is getting muscled out behind the scenes.

[Shryke]

2 hours ago, TiberiusJuliusCaesar said:

The political effect of VP selections is grossly overstated. There's some evidence that a poor selection can hurt, but we'd have to go back to 1960 to find a VP who was able to swing a state in the election, and that wasn't because of LBJ per se, but because of widely accepted, rampant corruption. As for political usefulness after an election, governing capability comes into it again if the president and VP have a real working relationship with each other (see Mondale, Gore, Cheney and Biden). 

I tend to think of VP's as presidential candidates by another name and consider their fitness to assume the presidency as the most important metric to use. So, all things being equal, I'd prefer a presidential resume, yes.

Their presidential resume is an even sillier metric then their ability to benefit the election.

[Mexal]

43 minutes ago, Mexal said:

Wow. This is going to get interesting then. It really sounds like he was thrown under the bus (maybe rightfully so). I can see him being vindictive in this.

Lewandowski, at least so far, is saying the right things. He' "honored" to have worked on the campaign and the buck stops with him on the past 6 weeks of rough news. He also disputes that family members were pushing for him to be fired. Said all this on MSNBC today.

[TiberiusJuliusCaesar]

8 minutes ago, Shryke said:

Their presidential resume is an even sillier metric then their ability to benefit the election.

VP choices almost never have a meaningful impact on the election, in their home states or otherwise. 

They do sometimes succeed a dead or resigning president, and the batting average of that is 4 dreadful presidents, 2 mixed ones, and 2 successes. Even with the successes, when a VP is chosen for purely political reasons, you can still end up with a drastic ideological shift happening. Furthermore, even assuming that the VP doesn't succeed because the president is somehow removed, VP's are often their parties nominee for the next open-seat election, exerting a determining influence on policy.

What's silly is chasing mythical political benefits to the exclusion of considering where the VP's most serious and most likely impact will be. 

[The Wedge]

Age issues, desire to campaign, etc, notwithstanding, I have a question:  Could Hillary pick Biden to be her running mate?

Keep Joe in the VP spot!

[Fez]

9 minutes ago, The Wedgekovsky said:

Age issues, desire to campaign, etc, notwithstanding, I have a question:  Could Hillary pick Biden to be her running mate?

Keep Joe in the VP spot!

Yep, she could. There's no constitutional limit on Vice Presidential terms. I believe even a former two-term President could be VP technically, it would just be completely pointless because they could not become President if the situation arose. But that's not a concern with Biden.

If it weren't for his age and the fact that he probably does want to be out of public life so he can properly cope with the death of his son, I'd absolutely want Clinton to keep him on.

[Shryke]

26 minutes ago, TiberiusJuliusCaesar said:

VP choices almost never have a meaningful impact on the election, in their home states or otherwise. 

They do sometimes succeed a dead or resigning president, and the batting average of that is 4 dreadful presidents, 2 mixed ones, and 2 successes. Even with the successes, when a VP is chosen for purely political reasons, you can still end up with a drastic ideological shift happening. Furthermore, even assuming that the VP doesn't succeed because the president is somehow removed, VP's are often their parties nominee for the next open-seat election, exerting a determining influence on policy.

What's silly is chasing mythical political benefits to the exclusion of considering where the VP's most serious and most likely impact will be. 

Except their political impact on the race is more likely then the chance they gonna end up in the big chair. If you wanna go pretending the selection matters, their potential time as President is the least relevant criteria.

And that's not even touching on your idea of what a presidential resume even IS. Cause seriously, the current President's resume doesn't hold up your silly standard.

[A Horse Named Stranger]

4 minutes ago, Fez said:

Yep, she could. There's no constitutional limit on Vice Presidential terms. I believe even a former two-term President could be VP technically, it would just be completely pointless because they could not become President if the situation arose. But that's not a concern with Biden.

 

Hum, I think that could actually be a somewhat interesting academic debate between lawyers. Let's see the 22nd amendment.

Quote

Section 1. No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once. But this article shall not apply to any person holding the office of President when this article was proposed by the Congress, and shall not prevent any person who may be holding the office of President, or acting as President, during the term within which this article becomes operative from holding the office of President or acting as President during the remainder of such term.

The wording in law is crucial. No Person shall be elected more than twice. Would a VP taking over for a deceased or otherwise incapacitated POTUS considered as elected?

Now you can either argue, yes of course, his name was on the ticket. Then Obama would not be eligible to run as VP. If you argue, no. The vote in the General Election was for the President (Hillary), not for her VP, then in theory Obama should be able to take over for Hillary. I would think the first position looks more logical, and thus rule out Obama even as theoretical VP pick.

 

[TiberiusJuliusCaesar]

15 minutes ago, Shryke said:

Except their political impact on the race is more likely then the chance they gonna end up in the big chair. If you wanna go pretending the selection matters, their potential time as President is the least relevant criteria.

And that's not even touching on your idea of what a presidential resume even IS. Cause seriously, the current President's resume doesn't hold up your silly standard.

Let me rephrase: The political impact of a VP matters when it comes to coalition building inside the party. Otherwise it's been statistically irrelevant for at least 50 years. For one thing, people vote for the top of the ticket, only a few partisan hacks change their vote based on the VP being someone that they want. 

What isn't statistically irrelevant is that VP's succeeding in fact or merely attempting to succeed is where they exercise their political influence. The bizarre idea that the fitness of the VP to be president is an unimportant part of the job description is simply false or Sarah Palin wouldn't be as widely derided as she is. 

You want to focus on the horse-race elements of VP selection and the optics of the choice, that's your prerogative. But that isn't going to be what moves the numbers. 

 

[lokisnow]

I like Perez because I think Cheney and Biden are better examples for the office of VP than Gore or Edwards or Quayle or Bush Sr, for example.  Cheney is a former cabinet secretary and government bureaucrat and is arguably the most effective VP in history, Biden is an elder statesmen and probably too old to be competitive after being elected VP, so it's a career capper for that kind of candidate.

Gore, Edwards, Bush Sr are all VP selections of your strongest competitor and it is a bad idea because such people often become the defacto nominee after serving as VP, since they have great name recognition from serving and incredible access to all the levers that move the party apparatus. But they are also by virtue of having lost the primary clearly not the strongest possible choice for nominee.  becoming the defacto nominee is bad because these are people who were unsuccessful at winning the primary in the first place, so it's not surprising they wind up being unsuccessful at winning the presidency either. 

by going with a Cheney or Perez type of cabinet secretary bureaucrat for VP you are clearing the way for your party to find the most competitive nominee they next cycle and also installing someone who is better at the role of the VP and not a threat you have to worry about undermining your administrations policy because many Veeps try to differentiate themselves from their administration in order to position themselves for future runs at the presidency. That creates a poor operational environment and makes it very difficult for them to inherit.

Quayle is a perfect example of the lack of merit to attempting electoral or demographic calculus 

after the constitutional amendment that had VPs and presidents elected on the same ticket, there are only TWO examples in history of a VP serving out the full reign of their boss and then being elected president. Bush Sr. and Van Buren, I think. so expecting a veep to ascend to the presidency after a term limited president can no longer run is a very poor expectation, and a good reason to abandon using the veep spot as a position of grooming the next in line. 

 

Bureaucrat's like Cheney are good because they're excellent at administering operational government functions and policy.

Elder Statemen like Biden are good because they're a good option in an emergency but they aren't preventing a strong bench from forming for the next cycle.

Competitors are bad because they deplete the bench for the next cycle and undermine their current administrations policy.

Electoral considerations are bad because Veeps demonstrably do not deliver native states. Otherwise every republican veep candidate would be from california.

 

[Shryke]

2 hours ago, TiberiusJuliusCaesar said:

Let me rephrase: The political impact of a VP matters when it comes to coalition building inside the party. Otherwise it's been statistically irrelevant for at least 50 years. For one thing, people vote for the top of the ticket, only a few partisan hacks change their vote based on the VP being someone that they want. 

Or people who view the VP pick as either a sign of gross incompetence (see - Palin). Or various other things. It ain't the biggest move in the world, but there's generally little reason not to go for it. And fyi, no one is claiming they will "deliver their state" but rather that a pick is an attempt to signal to specific groups that you are worth considering for their support. 

I don't even know where "partisan hacks" comes into play here in your mind.

 

Quote

 

What isn't statistically irrelevant is that VP's succeeding in fact or merely attempting to succeed is where they exercise their political influence. The bizarre idea that the fitness of the VP to be president is an unimportant part of the job description is simply false or Sarah Palin wouldn't be as widely derided as she is. 

You want to focus on the horse-race elements of VP selection and the optics of the choice, that's your prerogative. But that isn't going to be what moves the numbers. 

 

Sarah Palin reflected on McCain's fitness to be President. And the sheer incompetence of his campaign. 

The chance of the VP succeeding is just as irrelevant overall, no matter how much you keep pretending. And of course, again, that's even assuming we buy your criteria which would, you know, exclude the current President.

[Jace, Extat]

So I saw that ol' Donald might be facing fraud charges for not following through with his claimed charitable givings. Of course, his lawyers will likely keep them at bay until after his tell all presidential campaign book comes out.

[TiberiusJuliusCaesar]

52 minutes ago, Shryke said:

Sarah Palin reflected on McCain's fitness to be President. And the sheer incompetence of his campaign. 

The chance of the VP succeeding is just as irrelevant overall, no matter how much you keep pretending. And of course, again, that's even assuming we buy your criteria which would, you know, exclude the current President.

There are different metrics for choosing a VP, obviously. I think the question of whether or not that person is qualified to be president isn't irrelevant when looking at who to choose. For example, Lincoln chose an alcoholic white supremacist asshat to be his VP in 1864 for short-term political gains (which didn't translate into votes for him during that election) and for the optics. When he was killed, despite that shrewd political rationale, America still ended up with an alcoholic white supremacist asshat for president. So I really don't think that part of the question is irrelevant. 

Would you agree that ideally speaking a VP would combine political impact with fitness to serve as president?

[The Marquis de Leech]

Bearing in mind that it's been over 40 years since a VP took over from their boss mid-term, and over 50 years since an *elected* VP took over from their boss mid-term.

Of the "accidental Presidents", John Tyler, Millard Fillmore, and Andrew Johnson were clear failures, but they were also the first three of their kind. The remaining ones are Chester Arthur, Teddy Roosevelt, Calvin Coolidge, Harry Truman, Lyndon Johnson, and Gerald Ford, none of whom compare badly with the people who were elected President from the get-go. 

[The Anti-Targ]

9 hours ago, Notone said:

Hum, I think that could actually be a somewhat interesting academic debate between lawyers. Let's see the 22nd amendment.

The wording in law is crucial. No Person shall be elected more than twice. Would a VP taking over for a deceased or otherwise incapacitated POTUS considered as elected?

Now you can either argue, yes of course, his name was on the ticket. Then Obama would not be eligible to run as VP. If you argue, no. The vote in the General Election was for the President (Hillary), not for her VP, then in theory Obama should be able to take over for Hillary. I would think the first position looks more logical, and thus rule out Obama even as theoretical VP pick.

 

I dunno. Even if you argue that the VP was elected, he/she was elected to the office of VP, his/her assumption of the POTUS role is effectively by appointment. Therefore the prohibition n being elected president more than twice still does not apply.

But I imagine the intent of the amendment is that no person can be president for more than 2 terms, and I would think that's how the supreme court would rule if it came to it. Of course it doesn't preclude a former 2 term POTUS from being VP, it's just that the order of succession should POTUS die or be "dethroned" would bypass POTUS and go to the House Speaker. And of course unless you are supremely confident of having a speaker of your party for the entire term(s) of the POTUS it's too much of a risk to have a former 2 term POTUS as VP. You want the opposition party to be at least 2 heart beats from the White House, I would think.