Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Massachusetts) did not attend a Hillary Clinton fundraiser tonight in Washington, D.C.; showing signs that Warren is not satisfied with the presidential race. Can you see Warren making a late run for president in 2016, **or will she run for president in 2020 or 2024?
**
I don’t see her running for president in 2016, and she’ll be 71 in 2020 and 75 in 2024, so I don’t really see her running then either.
No way she runs this time around.
This site (https://ballotpedia.org/Ballot_access_for_presidential_candidates) shows that the filing deadlines for about five states have already passed, including Florida, New Hampshire, and South Carolina. Tennessee’s deadline is tomorrow. Louisiana, Michigan, Texas, and Virginia, among others, are within a couple of weeks.
One does not simply walk into the board of election commissioners office at the proverbial last moment with a stack of signatures in hand, not unless one has been gathering said signatures for a long time beforehand.
If the Dems win this time around, it would be a surprise to see her running in 2020, though stranger things have happened. If they lose, it’s certainly a possibility. Keep in mind though that she will be 70+ at the next election and 75 if she waits till 2024.
I think it’s kind of hilarious how desperate Republicans are to have anyone but Hillary on the ticket. Warren didn’t attend one fundraiser! Hillary is DOOMED! Keep telling yourselves that.
I’m sure this has been discussed before - but what would be the latest date that Clinton could drop dead from a heart-attack and still be replaced on the ballot?
It cannot be that (let’s say) she karks it on November 1st and Trump wins be default right?
I’m a Democrat, tho not at all a liberal one, more a libertarian/hawk one, but still, what has Warren actually achieved aside from saying nice stuff?
Wow, she was once an academic who told people she was part aboriginal. She’s the epitome of the elite ivory tower type who people outside the far-left cannot stand.
And what role does the electoral college play in this? After all, correct me if I’m wrong but nobody votes for Hillary, they vote for electors who are not required to be faithful to the named candidate. Wouldn’t they just meet and agree to vote for the runner up in the Democratic primary?
It’s nice of you to be so “concerned” about Hillary.
Nope. The short version is that, if she wins but is dead before she is sworn in, then her VP takes her place.
The longer version is that there’s nothing saying she has to be replaced before the people vote. Remember, the real election doesn’t happen until later, when the Electoral College meets and casts their votes.
If the candidate on the people’s ballot dies before the Electoral college votes, there would just be an emergency convention for the Democrats. They would then replace the candidate. Most likely, since the VP also won, they will move the VP up to the Presidential ticket, so voters don’t feel cheated.
But that raises the question of what happens if the candidate dies just before the electoral college make their votes. In that case, they just still vote for the candidate. There’s still no requirement that the person they vote for be alive. It only matters if they are alive to serve. If Clinton wins, then her VP just steps in, following the rules of succession.
And the same basic thing happens if the president-elect dies before being sworn in. From a legal standpoint, the VP is just taking office because the real President is dead. And, in all such cases, the new President is then empowered to fill the newly created vacancy in the VP slot.
Where it all gets messy is if both the president-elect and the vice president-elect both die. Obviously, if they’ve not been officially voted in, the party can put other people on the ticket–the people may feel cheated, but reality is that people mostly vote for the party with the platform they like, and the exact person doesn’t matter too much.
No, it’s only if they die after the people elect them that it gets weird. From what I understand, they legally must follow the rules of succession. But the rules of succession say that the Speaker of the House would become President. And the problem is, they can be a different party than the people chose to be president.
Personally, I think things were better when the line of succession went through the Cabinet. Truman’s reason for changing it makes no sense to me. Why would we not want the president to hand pick his successor? It’s not permanent, and the people clearly want someone who will carry out the agenda they voted for–not someone from the party they voted against.
It just seems like a mess waiting to happen. I strongly suspect a new law would be passed due to fear of a revolt, assuming a workaround like happened in with Nixon and Ford wasn’t devised.
Vice-President “Sunny Jim” Sherman died shortly before the 1908 election, but still got 321 votes in the electoral college.
Number One - I hope fervently for a Clinton win, I can’t imagine someone like Trump as president.
Part of what I am wondering is the legal standpoint of having her die a few days before the popular election - people “can’t” vote for a dead person right?
Part of the question is about the printing of ballot papers - I would assume that her name is printed on the voting slip right? Even if the Democrats can have an emergency convention and choose a new candidate, there wouldn’t be time to print and disseminate the new ballots?
Part of the question is about the filing deadlines mentioned in relation to Warren - by definition, these will have been missed - so could the party legally choose a new candidate that late in the game?
And of course - part of the question is in what the general public would know - after 6 months or more of a presidential campaign, then a week of blanket coverage of the main contender being dead, what would that do to what people think about what they should be marking on the ballot paper. There is sure to be be at least some confusion here, and people thinking
well, I can’t put a mark beside “Democrat” - that person is dead, so I HAVE to vote republican, who is alive?
How would it play out - if the name of a dead person is on the ballot, would there be legal challenges? Could there be?
Technically we don’t ever have a popular vote for the president. We actually vote for the electors who will vote for the president in December, although this is glossed over and is usually just very fine print on the ballot. But even if their candidate died they would still be alive and able to take office in December to cast their votes.
The National Archives (the agency responsible for, among other things, receiving the electoral votes in the mail and giving them to Congress) has a section about dead candidates in their FAQs. It’s not really reassuring.
Also, dead people have won actual popular elections in at least some the US. Mel Carnahan, for example, was elected to the Senate from Missouri in 2000 even though he died in a plane crash three weeks before the election. It was treated like any other vacancy once the start of his term arrived.
I don’t think so. By a few days before election day millions of people will have already cast their ballots. 30% of voters voted early in 2012.
The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, one of the best things to come out of the Wall Street reform effort, is pretty much her creation. And of course, she would have been running the CFPB for the past few years if the GOP hadn’t blocked her nomination. It’s on account of their efforts to minimize her opportunities for further accomplishments that she ran for Senate instead. 
I don’t see where you’re getting this from at all. She’s worked hard to protect the middle class from the financial predators of the corporate world, and was doing so well before she became a household name. Not exactly ivory-tower stuff.
It’s possible that Warren is waiting to see how Bernie does once the voting starts. But if I were Clinton, and sure of Warren’s support, I’d want to hold her off for a special event closer to DNC convention or until I needed a conversation changer.
I have no doubt that Warren will speak at the DNC and will support the actual nominated candidate. The next election is still a long way off.
Right, dead people’s names on the ballot is NOT an unfamiliar phenomenon. As pointed out here, most notoriously in recent times a dead man beat John Ashcroft.
Especially in the case of presidential primaries and elections, the voter is in effect electing the candidate’s slate of delegates or of electors, not the individual. THEY did not die. In the case of the general election if it really comes too late to declare an alternate ticket the expectation would be that the VP candidate will succeed to President-elect if that ticket wins, or else the Electoral College has to actually do their job more than just ceremonially for the first time in Og knows how long.
I dare say that if the pollsters & social media watchers for a dead presidential candidate’s party sniffed even a hint of such voter confusion, they would surely run ads, social media campaigns, and talking heads on the interview shows reminding the voters in no uncertain terms that voting for the dead presidential candidate is not pointless because either the living VP candidate would become President or the Electors for the dead candidate would pick a President from the same party.
Glory, Hillary Clinton is going to be the next POTUS.
Just accept it.
If Warren wanted to run, she’d have already jumped in. If Joe Biden, with infinitely more name recognition and likeability didn’t feel he had enough time last month, Warren certainly doesn’t have enough time now. Should something crazy like Hillary dying happen, you’d see a draft Biden movement.
The Master Speaks (pretty much saying the same as above).