PILOT SPIN
Spin Zone => Spin Zone => Topic started by: JeffDG on April 08, 2016, 08:57:26 AM
-
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/04/08/the-secret-movement-to-draft-general-james-mattis-for-president.html
An anonymous group of conservative billionaires is ready to place their bets on a man dubbed “Mad Dog,” hoping to draft him into the presidential race to confront Donald Trump.
Think of it as a Plan B should Trump be nominated by the Republican Party in Cleveland: swing behind retired U.S. Marine Corps Gen. James Mattis and press him into service yet again as a third-party candidate.
...
The strategy would not be for Mattis to win, at least at first—the operatives behind this potential bid would only be seeking to deny Trump and Clinton the 270 electoral votes necessary to win the general election outright. And there is also the incredible logistical challenge of getting Mattis on the ballot in a large number of states.
“The process is actually quite simple, but it’s difficult,” one of the strategists concedes in a memo, and the chances of Mattis winning the White House outright as a third-party candidate are “very low.” But if the retired military officer could win several states won by President Obama in 2012, they might be able to block Clinton, thus forcing the incoming House of Representatives to make a decision on the next president of the United States.
With the House split, the strategists reason, Mattis could be the consensus choice.
-
Now I would pay to watch THAT! A blowhard tough guy against a Marine tough guy? Semper Fi!
-
Now I would pay to watch THAT! A blowhard tough guy against a Marine tough guy? Semper Fi!
To be more precise, A Blowhard Toughguy v. A Shrill Harpy Felon v. a former Combatant Commander of CENTCOM.
-
To be more precise, A Blowhard Toughguy v. A Shrill Harpy Felon v. a former Combatant Commander of CENTCOM.
Sounds like an old MTV Celebrity Deathmatch.
-
Sounds like an old MTV Celebrity APPRENTICE Deathmatch.
FTFY
-
I like it. Go secret billionaires!! :D
-
FTFY
Hah, now that's a good fix.
-
I've been thinking that a 3rd Party challenge might be successful in a similar scenario.
The key is to deny anyone a majority in the Electoral College. Then it comes down to the House of Representatives voting by states
if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote;
(ie. every state only gets one vote) for President, and the Senate (voting normally - there's already equal state representation) for Vice President. if no person have a majority, then from the two highest numbers on the list, the Senate shall choose the Vice-President
--Quotes from 12th Amendment
The one thing that would scare me would be if Bernie runs a 3rd Party campaign as well...especially if it ends up something like:
Clinton: 250
Trump: 200
Sanders: 50
Mattis: 38
The Constitution provides that the House must choose from among the top 3 vote getters in the EC.
An additional wrinkle comes if you take the scenario in the article purely, say the EC goes:
Clinton/Warren: 250
Trump/Christie: 200
Mattis/Fiorina*: 138
* Just because I thought she was the best choice on the R side...
Now, the House elects Mattis as the "Consensus Candidate", however, the Senate must choose between Warren and Christie for VP. Who do you hope for in that case???
-
I've been thinking that a 3rd Party challenge might be successful in a similar scenario.
The key is to deny anyone a majority in the Electoral College. Then it comes down to the House of Representatives voting by states (ie. every state only gets one vote) for President, and the Senate (voting normally - there's already equal state representation) for Vice President.--Quotes from 12th Amendment
The one thing that would scare me would be if Bernie runs a 3rd Party campaign as well...especially if it ends up something like:
Clinton: 250
Trump: 200
Sanders: 50
Mattis: 38
The Constitution provides that the House must choose from among the top 3 vote getters in the EC.
An additional wrinkle comes if you take the scenario in the article purely, say the EC goes:
Clinton/Warren: 250
Trump/Christie: 200
Mattis/Fiorina*: 138
* Just because I thought she was the best choice on the R side...
Now, the House elects Mattis as the "Consensus Candidate", however, the Senate must choose between Warren and Christie for VP. Who do you hope for in that case???
This is fun and all, but in reality there is a good chance such person gets precisely zero electoral votes.
In 1992 Ross Perot got 20 million votes - 18.9% of the popular vote, and earned no electoral votes. GHW Bush got 39 million votes, 37.4% of the popular vote, but only 168 electoral votes. Clinton got 45 million votes and only 43% of the PV, but got 370 EVs.
It was worse in 1996 when people (like me) saw what happened when they threw away their vote to Perot. He only got 8 million votes, and no EVs.
-
This is fun and all, but in reality there is a good chance such person gets precisely zero electoral votes.
In 1992 Ross Perot got 20 million votes - 18.9% of the popular vote, and earned no electoral votes. GHW Bush got 39 million votes, 37.4% of the popular vote, but only 168 electoral votes. Clinton got 45 million votes and only 43% of the PV, but got 370 EVs.
It was worse in 1996 when people (like me) saw what happened when they threw away their vote to Perot. He only got 8 million votes, and no EVs.
I find doing some gedankenexperiment with the Constitution is a fascinating exercise in probing the edges of Constitutional Law.
Another example for you:
POTUS and VPOTUS are both running for re-election and are at a campaign rally together. Both are shot by an assassin. VPOTUS is killed and POTUS is left comatose. Explain the implications under the 25th Amendment and who has the authority to exercise executive authority.
-
I find doing some gedankenexperiment with the Constitution is a fascinating exercise in probing the edges of Constitutional Law.
Another example for you:
POTUS and VPOTUS are both running for re-election and are at a campaign rally together. Both are shot by an assassin. VPOTUS is killed and POTUS is left comatose. Explain the implications under the 25th Amendment and who has the authority to exercise executive authority.
Alexander Haig. :) (I really have no idea)
Gary
-
That's kind of the point.
The 25th Amendment authorizes the VPOTUS, with the concurrence of a majority of the Cabinet (it uses more verbose language instead of Cabinet) to declare that the President is not capable of fulfilling the duties of his office, which a comatose state most certainly would qualify, and in such case the VPOTUS becomes "Acting President" and is authorized to exercise all of the powers and duties of the POTUS during such incapacity.
However, it's also explicit that the VPOTUS must act. There is no reference to vacancy or incapacity (say both POTUS and VPOTUS were left comatose) and having the duty pass to the next in line of succession.
With POTUS comatose, there's nobody who has the authority to nominate a new VPOTUS either.
The only way to resolve that I can see would involve the House impeaching, and the Senate convicting POTUS of high crimes or misdemeanors and removing him from office as he lay comatose in the hospital.
-
That's kind of the point.
The 25th Amendment authorizes the VPOTUS, with the concurrence of a majority of the Cabinet (it uses more verbose language instead of Cabinet) to declare that the President is not capable of fulfilling the duties of his office, which a comatose state most certainly would qualify, and in such case the VPOTUS becomes "Acting President" and is authorized to exercise all of the powers and duties of the POTUS during such incapacity.
However, it's also explicit that the VPOTUS must act. There is no reference to vacancy or incapacity (say both POTUS and VPOTUS were left comatose) and having the duty pass to the next in line of succession.
With POTUS comatose, there's nobody who has the authority to nominate a new VPOTUS either.
The only way to resolve that I can see would involve the House impeaching, and the Senate convicting POTUS of high crimes or misdemeanors and removing him from office as he lay comatose in the hospital.
Say again why it wouldn't just go the Speaker of the House?
-
Say again why it wouldn't just go the Speaker of the House?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_line_of_succession
-
I find doing some gedankenexperiment with the Constitution is a fascinating exercise in probing the edges of Constitutional Law.
Another example for you:
POTUS and VPOTUS are both running for re-election and are at a campaign rally together. Both are shot by an assassin. VPOTUS is killed and POTUS is left comatose. Explain the implications under the 25th Amendment and who has the authority to exercise executive authority.
Oooh, good question.
I think Congress decides under the 25th, and Congress last did that in 1947 when they added back the Speaker of the House and President pro temporare, in that order after the Vice President.
-
Say again why it wouldn't just go the Speaker of the House?
On what basis would the succession occur?
POTUS is still alive (comatose), and the provisions of the 25th Amendment to declare POTUS incapacitated cannot be invoked without the VPOTUS.
-
Oooh, good question.
I think Congress decides under the 25th, and Congress last did that in 1947 when they added back the Speaker of the House and President pro temporare, in that order after the Vice President.
Congress decides the order of succession, however a POTUS can only be declared incapacitated by the VPOTUS with the support of the majority of the Cabinet.
-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_line_of_succession (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_line_of_succession)
Succession doesn't kick in while POTUS remains alive unless he resigns or is impeached.