Kamala Harris and Mark Kelly ticket?

[BootmanLA]

3 hours ago, PozBearWI said:

Can Trump toss Vance aside???

Yes.
In 1972, Tom Eagleton was the Democratic VP nominee under McGovern. When it was revealed that Eagleton had undergone electroshock therapy for depression in the past, McGovern ended up dropping Eagleton and choosing R. Sergeant Shriver.

And in 1912, when Taft was running for re-election, his current VP (James Sherman) died six days before the election. He picked Nicholas Butler.

In neither case was the replacement VP nominee approved by a political convention - the candidate simply made his choice and they were on the ballot.

[DallasPozzible]

5 hours ago, PozBearWI said:

Can Trump toss Vance aside???

Michael Steele (Former RNC head, former Maryland Lt Gov) said today there would be lots of legal problems if Trump tried this. Mostly, I assume, because Republicans already officially nominated Vance at convention. I think Trump should try subbing in Lindsey Graham. 

[DallasPozzible]

1 hour ago, BootmanLA said:

In neither case was the replacement VP nominee approved by a political convention - the candidate simply made his choice and they were on the ballot.

Good point. I’m not sure what Steele was specifically referring to. I’m guessing though that states have passed a lot of election laws since ‘72. 🤷‍♂️

[BootmanLA]

11 minutes ago, DallasPozzible said:

Good point. I’m not sure what Steele was specifically referring to. I’m guessing though that states have passed a lot of election laws since ‘72. 🤷‍♂️

True. And courts, of course, can cook up all sorts of bizarre rulings (see Cannon, Aileen, of the US District Court for the Southern District of Florida). But the general principle is that no one can be forced to stand for office, and if Vance withdrew, whether on his own or on Trump's orders, I don't think there's any court that would force him to stay on the ballot. Given that federal law calls for the electors to be chosen on a set date in November (the first Tuesday after the first Monday)*, there has to be an intrinsic way to have electors pledged to support a particular VP between the convention and the election. I am unaware of any way state law on this could be effective.

*Why "first Tuesday after first Monday"? Because if the first Tuesday was on November 1, that would make election day fall on All Saints Day, which is celebrated not only by Roman Catholics but also by Anglicans/Episcopalians, Methodists, and Lutherans, among others. 

[DallasPozzible]

Dems are virtually nominating on Aug 7 because an Ohio election law specifies a ballot deadline before the dates of Dem convention. In the past Ohio has made exceptions, but this year they threatened not to. Later, they decided to allow, but Dems aren’t taking any chances. And states do have ballot deadlines because many start early voting in September.
 

We know Kamala will name her VP before August 7 virtual nom vote. 

[757neg4poz]

I think the Dems may pick someone like Tim Walz who both intervened in an officer-involved shooting case and told George Floyd protesters to go home. The Dems do not want to be associated with police abolition and might go for someone who is vocally skeptical.

[BootmanLA]

3 hours ago, DallasPozzible said:

And states do have ballot deadlines because many start early voting in September.

If "7" is "many" then yes, as that's the number of states whose earliest "early voting" date falls in September this year.

But again, in 1912 the VP nominee was replaced six days before the election. In 1972, Eagleton withdrew earlier (August 1), but still well after the convention, by 19 days; and his replacement, R. Sergeant Shriver, wasn't named until August 8.

I'm pretty sure that any court would hold that the VP nominee could be swapped out by someone else as long as the VP nominee withdrew (on paper, at least, even if ordered to do so by his presidential running mate). No federal court is going to mandate that the candidate go through with the election.

[hntnhole]

14 hours ago, DallasPozzible said:

I think Trump should try subbing in Lindsey Graham

That might prove slightly better than Vance, I suppose.  Graham, however, has been widely seen (including re-runs in the major media quite often) to be on all sides at any given time or situation.  He's widely thought to be insincere no matter what particular issue he's going on about.  Not as bad as Vance, but hardly much better.  And, there's that "Lady Graham" thing that surfaces fairly often too.  

If T dumps V, he can surely do better with one of the other senators, representatives, almost anyone. 

[ellentonboy]

I sure wish Trump would sub Lindsey Graham .  He's had more porn stars and male prostitutes coming in and out of his house, and there are reporters and journalists who have documented this.  The problem, the one porn star who initially  said he would make a "statement" has suddenly gone into hiding.  He worked for Dark Alley videos and had a gmail account, I asked him repeatedly when he and his attorney were going to "the press".  He suddenly went dark on the internet and though his gmail account remains active, he won't respond to me.  But "Lady Graham" has some skeletons in his closet, I know Jan Pataki  (sp?) (former WH Press Secretary) has referred to him under that name, I think he has too much baggage  for Trump to pick him.

If Trump did, it might open the flood gates.....

[hntnhole]

1 hour ago, ellentonboy said:

But "Lady Graham" has some skeletons in his closet

Some say he had to build a whole 'nother house in his back yard just to house all those skeletons.  Yes, Jen (oh ... Psaki) has let that one slip through her lips any number of times, and she always has a special gleam in her eye every time she does.  

But in addition, no one knows what he actually believes - if anything.  He's taken more positions on issues than anyone else I can think of, which makes whatever cums out of his mouth completely unreliable. I'm surprised any of the major media bothers to interview him anymore.  

1 hour ago, ellentonboy said:

Pataki

George Pataki is a former Governor of NY ..... 

[DallasPozzible]

My suggestion apparently didn’t land as intended. It would just be funny seeing Trump going from frying pan into the fire (or from the electrified boat into the mouth of a shark) by subbing in lovely Lindsey. Agree with @hntnholeand @ellentonboy. 

[NWUSHorny]

2 hours ago, hntnhole said:

If T dumps V, he can surely do better with one of the other senators, representatives, almost anyone. 

I'm not sure Trump can do any better than Vance or Graham. Anyone he picks is going to subtract from his coalition.

Any normie will piss off enough of his base to the point they won't vote than it will add in swing voters

Any pick from his rabid base will come from a faction that another faction within the base hates and cause the pissed off faction not to vote without adding any swing voters

He is literally better off running without a named VP.

 

[norefusal]

are we all just ignoring the fact that he tried to get a mob to execute his last VP? any potential candidate has to think how their name sounds when a crazed mob is chanting "hang j d vance!" or "hang leslie graham!" etc  

[Sfmike64]

9 hours ago, NWUSHorny said:

He is literally better off running without a named VP.

 

That's not legal. There have to be candidates for both offices.

Edited August 1 by Sfmike64

[FFslutboi]

13 hours ago, ellentonboy said:

 Jan Pataki  (sp?)

Jen Psaki. And I won't hear anymore of this nonsense denigrating a sitting US senator. How dare you, sir. Everybody knows that Sen L.G., who is one of the few male, single and unmarried sitting members of Congress, to be DC's most notorious and prolific unabashed pussy hounds who's been tearing up gash ever since he was elected to Congress, from Georgetown U to Foggy Bottom, from A street to K street and back again. He's DC's most eligible bachelor for good Christ's sake, I mean, who wouldn't want to marry a man who's wholly unafraid to publish pictures of himself smiling at a chicken sandwich? Let me tell you, he was doing both God's work AND the work of the people of South Carolina that day, and what's better than an elected politician who works for both God AND for you? Just smiling at that chicken sandwich, in his own inimitable fay-aging-bachelor-from-the-south sort of way; the pride that he felt for himself in taking such a controversial photo, that is: that chicken sandwiches are good, and tasty, and are to be smiled upon, which was a stance very much regarded as contrary to public opinion at the time - well, you could almost just reach out and touch it as if it were a hard penis right there in front of you. That's just how strong and how real his pride for himself seemed in that photograph. You know, I bet he just gobbled that chicken sandwich right up no more than 10 seconds after they took that photograph too and he didn't even bother to wash up beforehand, belching on his way out the door to pick up some loose women of questionable moral standing who lacked any visible means of support, and then he proceed to insert the glans of his large, tumescent penis directly into the vaginas of those totally real women, repeatedly and roughshod, and then toss away any concerns they might have about the possibility of becoming impregnated by his hyper-virulent seed by shouting "Pro Life 4 Lyfe, Bitchez! YOLO!", as he door hopped into the front set of his matte-finish wrapped Aventador Roadster lambo, scuurrrrting away in a cloud of burnt rubber with his shades on like a total maverick badass. Such is the way of the machismo-oozing, pussy-pounding, Wolf Pack Alpha leader that is Sen. L.G. of South Carolina. Dude's not gay. Straight as an arrow. Straight as a beaver-eating beaver cleaver. Confirmed pussy hound. DC mothers, please lock up your daughters for their own safety and your piece of mind.. So just sssssstoooph it already! 😠