Both Californians, so not practically possible under the 12th Amendment (amending Article II of the Constitution). Electors cast separate votes for Pres and VP per the 12th, but cannot cast votes for two candidates that are from the same state as they are per Article II. If it’s two candidates from Rhode Island, that might be a barely tolerable risk under some rare circumstances (i.e. you expect a landslide victory). But in any close election and with CA more than any other state, it just doesn’t work.
But, easily addressed, by one of the two establishing a new state of residence. This happened in 2000, when both George W. Bush and Dick Cheney were Texas residents; Cheney changed his state of residence to Wyoming prior to the election.
What a bizarre rule. What is the obvious reason for this that I’m missing?
According to the Wikipedia entry on the 12th Amendment:
Basically, to prevent any one state from “controlling” both offices, it sounds like.
That seems rather quaint. But I guess there’s plenty of oddness and outdatedness in our Constitution.
It also seems like it’s a hold-over from a clause in the original Constitution. So, yeah, it’s an clause that dates back 240 years.
Yeah, state power and state loyalty was a much bigger deal back then.
So I’m looking at the diaries on dailykos.com, or at least the headlines and first paragraphs in many cases, and there are a lot of people writing the kinds of things that the opposing side in the debate here are saying.
Including a lot of “Stand by Biden!”-type nostalgia and feeling-based support. The delusion is reaching Trumpian levels in some cases. Sigh.
Good article that came out yesterday (7/19):
I’ve written five columns since the debate arguing in one way or another that Biden should step aside. Every time, I’ve encountered a wave of tweets from non-insider Democrats who are furious about this. Their language has often been as angry as that of any right-winger reading one of my normal columns. Shut up, you hack. You people should be ashamed. Joe has been great, and I’m with him all the way, and if you aren’t, get out of the way.
Again, I think these people are wrong. But the point is they’re out there.
Hmm, sounds familiar…
It is a rare politician that willingly gives up power. Biden has spent is whole life in politics, he reached the pinnacle, he (like most people) are not likely to walk away from it under any circumstances.
I very rarely pay attention to my Facebook feed (haven’t posted in years, check it a few times a year at most), but just out of curiosity I dipped into it the other day. Turns out several of my friends are full on Biden loyalists, to the point a couple of them exerted themselves to call their senators and reps to leave messages telling them not to tolerate Biden being pushed out “by a bunch of billionaires.” Something they wouldn’t normally do. So yes, they’re out there (these are well-educated people in their 40’s and 50’s).
Like I said, I’m agnostic - I have no loyalty to politicians. I just want to win and I genuinely remain on the fence about which is the better path. But the louder people get, the more self-inflicted pain it generates. Just have to wait and see. Personally I refuse to let myself get agitated over something I cannot affect.
It’s akin to having a loved one in the hospital who is on terminal life support and part of the family wants to pull the plug and another part refuses cuz the patient might wake up at any moment.
Yeah, it’s that conspiracy theory logic that really disturbs and annoys me. Lots of the “billionaire” crap on kos right now.
Yeah, I want to relax and say, “The adults in charge of this stuff will handle it.” The thing is, I don’t know if they really will. Biden certainly isn’t being an adult–yet.
Yeah, and in their reality, they are seeing a relative killed before their eyes.
It really is similar, since a lot of the argument in this thread comes down to perceptions of Biden’s debate performance and subsequent interviews, etc.
If people see it as fine or verbally concede that it wasn’t but still minimize its effects, it’s really hard to argue beyond that point.
I also think it’s likely been a boiled frog type thing. As Biden has gotten older, no doubt he and those around him have had to adjust to reduced capabilities of various types. After it goes beyond a certain point or even falls off a cliff, as I have suggested happened recently, it’s easy for Biden to take the path of denial and narrative preservation: “Oh, this is just another thing to deal with now that I’m 80-plus,” rather than recognize that he can no longer do the job.
It looks like Aug 7 is a hard date (Ohio requires nominee certification by Aug 7 (90 days before election) - you obviously have to be on Ohio ballot**)
Today is Jul 20. 18 days days to get a nominee certified.
Trump has to be the most beatable candidate in decades (ever?) and this is the Democratic effort to counter him.
**re: Ohio. Dems plan to do a virtual role call ahead of the convention to comply. In years past, with same requirement, they would get legislation passed beforehand to exempt them and let them do the certification later. However, it appears an exemption from that law is unlikely since R’s won’t help them for this particular reason). If anyone knows this is not a hard date and it can wait until the convention, let me know.
There is no nominee until the Democratic Convention August 19, so how could that possibly work?
It seems like they will only understand once they have seen consequences. Unfortunately those consequences will impact the rest of the country and world, too.
I hear ya, but it appears Ohio disagrees (or the D’s scheduled a late convention).
Here’s the language from ballotpedia in my link above:
Political parties
Candidates nominated by political parties may have their names printed on the general election ballot. A party must certify the names of its presidential and vice presidential candidates with the secretary of state on or before the 90th day preceding the general election. Ohio law defines a political party as a group whose candidate for governor or president in the last general election received at least 3 percent of the votes cast for those or has filed with the secretary of state.
Nov 5 - 90 days = Aug 7
In theory, they can pass legislation to change that and have in years past. But I’m reading they don’t have the votes/can’t be done this year.
It would work by D’s doing a “virtual” role call certifying the nominees ahead of the convention (which they did during Covid). This virtual role call has already been approved awhile back (before the debate, etc.).
So, thinking this out, there will be Ohio certified nominees before the convention. I’d think, practically, you’d have to go with those same two at the convention or it all just self-implodes.
Nothing here is sure.
But I agree you cannot cater to everyone’s desires. The minute the torch is passed from Biden to Harris, some feminist voters move from Jill Stein to Kamala, while a certain number of misogynists move away from the Democratic ticket.
Some strong Biden supporters will vow to sit out the election in frustration at their primary vote having been disregarded. And some, who now lean towards Trump, will switch to Harris on grounds that Donald just became the old candidate who makes confusing statements. Yes, it was always true, but with Biden in the race, they refused to think it.
A moderate like myself might suggest Harris pivot towards the center with some sort of Sister Souljah moment, risking loss of a few voters to Stein and West in order to capture the middle. Can this backfire? It is possible. Is it a sure path to disaster? No.
Switching from Biden to another standard-bearer (probably Harris, but no one knows for sure) would shake up a relatively static race where, in my judgment, the GOP has long been favored. I think it will be politically positive for the Democrats, and, more important, is the right thing to do when a first term president shows cognitive challenges following primary filing deadlines. It is conceivably a path to disaster, but certainly not a sure path to disaster.