Ben Surtees on: March 4th - The Endgame?
February 13th, 2008
Guest slot on why it will all come down to Texas and Ohio… probably
Super Tuesday’s “Split Decision” has raised the prospect of a protracted fight for the Democrat nomination, even a brokered convention. Certainly the failure of the early primaries to produce a presumptive nominee has senior democrats concerned and political pundits excited. However, despite this, it remains likely that a nominee will be decided long before the party’s convention, in Denver in late August.
With six wins out of six already February looks set to be a good month for Barack Obama, with likely victories in the two remaining contests in Wisconsin and Hawaii on February 19th. Such a sweep places enormous pressure on Hillary Clinton, who has already been forced to contend with fundraising difficulties and a major shake up within her campaign staff. In an effort to recover momentum, the Clinton campaign is now targeting the primaries in Texas and Ohio on March 4th, both of which offer significant delegate hauls.
The Clinton campaign’s effort to effectively bypass the remaining February primaries in favour of the big states in play on March 4th carries echoes of Rudy Giuliani’s failed presidential campaign.
Like Giuliani, Senator Clinton runs the risk of ceding massive momentum to her rival that could seriously undermine her position in those states which vote later. Her campaign’s emphasis on Texas and Ohio, also means that, should Clinton fail to secure convincing wins in both, her position could rapidly become untenable.
As unconvincing performances in Texas and Ohio, could potentially act as the catalyst for leading Democrats to begin to call for her to exit the race, in the interests of party unity.
For Barack Obama, Texas and Ohio also represent key tests: Should the Illinois Senator sweep the February contests, strong performances in the states voting on March 4th would place the Democratic nomination within his reach. Conversely, strong performances by Senator Clinton in both states could swing the momentum of the race back in her favour.
Both Ohio and Texas would seem to be contests likely to favour Hillary Clinton. In Ohio lower income, blue collar workers dominate the Democratic primary, while in Texas the state’s large Hispanic community also provides a strong base for the New York Senator. Consequently, Obama’s chances of doing well in these states rests on his ability to replicate the expansion of his support amongst lower income white voters and Hispanics which he achieved in Virginia and Maryland.
Another key feature of the contests on March 4th is the bizarre caucus/primary hybrid employed in Texas. While the state will hold a primary, this will only allocate two thirds of delegates, as the final third will be allotted by a series of caucuses held during the evening. An esoteric electoral process to say the least, which could well play to the strengths of the Obama Campaign, with it’s impressive track record in caucuses.
Neither candidate is likely to have the necessarily delegate lead to ‘clinch’ the nomination after March 4th. However, either Barack Obama’s momentum will have been checked by Clinton securing strong victories in both Texas and Ohio or it will not. As a result, one candidate is likely to come under substantial pressure to exit the race in favour of the perceived front-runner.
While, the March 4th contests could prove inconclusive and the race drag out further (either to the Pennsylvania primary in April or all the way to Denver in August) that would seem unlikely. If Senator Clinton is in fact ‘ceeding’ the February contest to Obama then she has to be able to respond with strong showings in Ohio and Texas on March 4th. At the same time, Obama has to be able to maintain his momentum even where the demographics may favour Clinton. One candidate has to fall short on March 4th and for that candidate their position as a viable contender for the Democratic nomination could become rapidly untenable, as the move for party unity in an election year becomes irresistible.
Latest betting prices on the Democratic race are here.
Ben Surtees
MessageSpace Advertising
If HRC performs well in Ohio and Texas I see no calls for BHO to drop out. He’ll stay in until Pen at least in those circumstances. This really could be the long haul. However, the media will want to create a candidate as we already have a GOP one. Thus there will be klaxon cries for Hillary to exit this month and if she doesn’t win big on March 4th. She’ll just have to ignore it.
A Srategic Vision poll in Wisconsin has Obama in the lead in Wisconsin but only by 4 , 45-41 so I don’t think Hillary will concede this state at this stage . I still think this contest is the real contest for the Presidency and whoever wins it will win the GE easily , for that reason I still think it could go all the way to Denver .
Obama leads by 119 in terms of pledged delegates, possibly a few more after Wisconsin. He is likely to be still more than 100 ahead even if he loses Ohio and the popular vote in Texas.
It certainly would not look good for Obama to lose two big states after a whole month of wins, but I find it hard to envisage him dropping out when he retains a lead in pledged delegates.
Is there enough time before Ohio and Texas for the party elders to call on Clinton to concede gracefully?
I note that more superdelegates have now declared for both candidates, but closing that gap to 77. Perhaps a swing towards Obama here would put more pressure on Clinton to pull out?
2 - Mark Senior, why do you see either candidate steam rollering McCain?
3 - she just won’t pull out when its still so close. Its inconceivable. She wants this far too much.
1 - Obama could be up to 150 delegates ahead by the time of Texas and Ohio; it’s unlikely that he would be behind, let alone too far behind to make a win impossible. Clinton could well need 260 delegates on April 4th to Obama’s 110 to claim that she was ahead, in other words, it ain’t going to happen.
There are still 600 delegates after Texas/Ohio etc and Clinton must be looking to those to stand any chance of overhauling Obama.
First of the state by state Rasmussen match ups - New Hampshire.
Obama 49
McCain 36
Clinton 43
McCain 41
That’s a Kerry/Bush-like match up for Clinton.
Reposted from last thread.
Hillary - The End Is Nigh.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/02/why_hillary_will_lose.html
Good article, Ben. I can’t see the race ending before TX/OH. If Hillary wins both, the race will continue at least to PA and she will have a fair amount of momentum again. If she loses both, it’s obver. If she wins one and comes close in the other, she’ll probably struggle on but ultimately lose.
David H at 172 in the last thread - hate to seem naive, but there is a fifth reason why politicians sometimes endorse someone to lead - that they think they’d be the best choice for the party and/or country. But I agree that this probably isn’t Edwards’ main consideration right now, and suspect he’s just planting stories to keep up interest in his views.
Is Ohio as low income as made out? From what I’ve seen the average income is pulled down by blacks, who of course will go to Obama. The average white income is $43,000 pa, which isn’t Alaska, but it’s not the poor white communities in which Clinton did well in the upper South.
African Americans also make up 12% of the population, so probably about 20% of the Democratic electorate, If we assume black voting trends elsewhere that means a 12 point lead for Obama. The state is 2.5% Hispanic, so, given slightly lower turnout compared to blacks, about 4% of the Dem electorate. Even if this goes heavily Clinton - which is no means certain considering Obama won this group in Virginia - Obama still has a 10 point lead before we get to whites. Take off another point for Clinton winning Asians convincingly.
So Clinton has to make up nine points from the white 85% of the electorate, which means winning whites by about 11 points. Consider that the economic status of whites I mentioned above, the fact the state is in the Midwest, which doesn’t seem to like Clinton, and that Obama won’t just have the momentum he has so far but another two under his belt with Wisconsin and Hawaii. And remember this is assuming Clinton wins very heavily among Hispanics and Asians.
And that’s just for a win. Not the landslide she needs. Will she really be able to remain credible with just a win in Texas, even a big one, if she ties or loses Ohio?
ukpaul @ 7.
The fat lady sings for Hillary in New Hampshire.
9 - hear hear
4 The economy stupid argument to a great extent , McCain is a reasonable candidate , without him it would be a Democrat landslide , even with him IMO a heavy defeat . The turnout in the Democratic primaries compared to GOP ones shows which parties supporters is far more enthused .
Re: previous topic.
I like *this* election graphic for the Canadian Federal Election, albeit it’s homemade:
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=rph4aVAYnag
Ave it 08 - where are you? - you’ve gotta love Alberta
How solid is that?!?!
10 SurveyUSA new poll has Clinton with a 19 point lead in Ohio .
13 - the turnout definitely show which base is more animated by its candidates. The Republican base didn’t like their candidates; the Democrats loved theirs. However, this won’t necessarily translate into votes come November. McCain has been polling well in the head to heads and with the economy looking sour McCain will be better placed the BHO certainly. They will attack him as Bush III but he opposed the tax cuts and is most popular with the anti-bush crowd. The Bush III assault won’t work.
A republican to win the race in Nov at 2.3 is still a good bet.
14 - alberta looks like sw london and sw england next time!!!
LDs = HOHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHO!
By the way, I spoke to a Republican friend of mine who has a lot of contacts in the party. She said that privately Republicans are very worried about the upcoming election. Not only is their base unmotivated and divided, but the belief among donors is that its a Democrat year and they don’t want to waste their money. They also feel that many soft Republicans could gravitate towards Obama and that the Democrats are really pumped up as shown by the big turnout in primaries.
She added that many high up Republicans were privately pleased McCain got the nomination, as they want him to take the fall rather than someone more associated with the party establishment.
16. Except he’s spent the last six months explaining how he is now going to keep Bush’s tax cuts
What I’ve always thought would be an interesting way to measure momentum, would be to go back and poll states that have already voed, to see who the voters there would back if they were to vote again tomorrow.
17. Where’s your optimism?
Alberta looks like Scotland next time.
The new Rasmussen New Hampshire match up polls in detail -
http://rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/new_hampshire/new_hampshire_2008_presidential_election
obama leading in both gallup and rasmussen tracking polls now, he must be winning over some of clintons main demographics to be taking such a lead?
21 its good to be positive.
Con gain everything.
Mark Senior puts on a blue rosette
20 - very good. Is there any data for that?
15. Typical Mark (Senior) analysis.
It is also Obamas highest poll rating ever in Ohio - 39% (at the end of January he was at 19%) or, in other words, a 20% improvement in 2 weeks.
Hmmm..
Also, Clintons lead hasn’t been that low in Ohio since March last year.
And it’s actually a 17% lead, not 19%. You were wrong about that too. Even if this poll is accurate, a further 9% swing to Obama over the next 2 weeks is easily achievable with forward momentum.
Back to the Night-Nurse Mark.
16 If you think 2.3 is a good bet on a GOP President you should take the 3.05 available on Betfair , I wouldn’t .
24. That’s a massive call Ave it!!
I’ll make a bigger one…
Con Gain Ireland
Mark Senior gains Sense of Humour.
27 - I shall do. That will tighten as the Dems battle it out and McCain can set about fund raising and attacking them. I’m not saying he’ll win but 3.05 must be good value. McCain’s got to be a better than 25% chance for the Presidency now.
26/28 I had a good sense of humour once but reading too many posts from Conservative posters such as yourself made me lose it .
Seems with the latest defection in Tower Hamlets by a councillor from SWP to Conservative the new Conservative rosette will be a red hammer/sickle one .
James - except those odds suggest a 33% chance of the presidency… which is about right.
Oh yes, can I recommend the 1,000-to-1 on Ms Rice to be next President. That basically says Condi gets the VP nomination and then McCain dies… Not a crazy theory…
28 ‘Mark Senior gains Sense of Humour’.
Its more likely Watford will win the Champions League!
L to the O to the L
Good article Ben. Here is a scenario for you. CLinton wins both Ohio and Texax on popular vote by a whisker. Obama wins more delegates in texas because some are allocated by a caucus on the same night and we all know is strength there.
He also wins Rhode Island and Vermon by a mile as Bilary is forced to abandon them.
Clinto spins we won…the delegate count says she lost. What happens next?
This of course has been the patten of the election thus far.
31. She wouldn’t be the next President though would she? She’d be the one after next.
Mark Penn sounds unconvincing at best, desperate at worst:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/02/the_path_to_the_nomination.html
Looking even worse for Clinton, this time a state Obama won - Colorado. Bush won Colorado last time by 4.5%.
Obama 46
McCain 39
Clinton 35
McCain 49
Ouch.
33. I don’t think we will see a knock out blow for Clinton. The nomination will just edge away from her bit by bit.
30. Annnnnnd he takes the bait!!!
*Casino reels in Mark Senior, but decides fish is TOO SMALL, removes him from hook, puts him back in the sea*
32. LOLOLOL!!!
:lol:
RE:the justified slagging off of the BBC Election coverage on the last thread.
One aspect, which I don’t think was mentioned, was their often amazingly amateur analysis of it all - certainly last May they were comparing GE results with Local Results ALL night.
poll: Obama +10 in NC…
http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReport.aspx?g=d23109c7-f52b-4d00-8215-b0849653b957
It seems a lot more even in the States than over here, where we’re all convinced that Obama has done it. And in terms of delegates, RodCrosby et al make a pretty powerful case. But the USA doesn’t seem to buy it yet, and Hillary seems like she can survive anything except a pounding on March 4th, although she’s taking hits like her campaign team falling apart.
If Obama had really done it nationally, we wouldn’t be seeing the continued polling leads for Hillary in TX/OH. While they stay as they are, Hillary is still in it.
It feels like a while since we had a uk opinion poll, is there one due anytime???
41. But the Clinton’s big strategy after Texas and Ohio is Pennsylvania on April 22nd. That’s a month and a half later, which is even longer than the drought she’s having through February. Even if she did do what her campaign is claiming on March 4th, she would have lost any momentum for Pennsylvania. I can’t see how she can do this unless Obama makes a big mistake or there’s a stitchup from superdelegates (which I don’t think they’d be stupid enough to do).
Regarding the importance of endorsments it only matters what the voters of the relevant party think. Nancy Pelosi endorsing Obama (or Edward endorsing Hillary) is good for Obama (or Hillary in the case of Edwards) but the NEA endorsing Huckabee is not good for Huckabee. Therefore you have to look at the relevant crosstabs:
re 42. We had Populus last week showing a 9% Tory lead and we await all the other pollster’s scheduled February surveys. Most usually come out in the final week of the month.
The firms generally try to avoid fieldwork this week - which is school half term in many parts of the country. This can distort samples and results.
She has the money and motivation to keep going till 4/3 so why not? The media will have months of Mccain/Obama so from there point of view why not keep the novelty value going a little longer? As I observed earlier a few weeks as the under dog will do her good. What won’t is the emerging feeling that her campaign is just very slowly slipping away.
Thats why edwards is so interesting. I can’t imagine an endorsement swinging any votes but it would at least change the media narrative even for just 24 hours.
I don’t think that even if Hilary wins the March 4th states on popular vote her delegate count will improve much - and the press is looking more at that now than just winning states so, unless she wins as well as Obama did last weekend, it’s likely she’ll concede soon after, as funds dry up and pressure builds.
Reading the weather reports I do wonder what the turnouts and results would have been in many of the primaries & caucuses had they been held at their more traditional times and what effects that would have had on outcomes. The tsunami Tuesday was meant to seal the deal for Hilary but her demographics are those less likely to turn out on icy roads and in snow, whereas the Obamanics would have been more up for it.
47 - she needs the press to be doing that as Obama, i think, has 20 to her 11 (is that right?).
34. She would be if McCain died between the election and the inauguration. It might be worth checking on the rules in that kind of scenario - the rider in bold isn’t very clear, simply stating that “this market will be settled on the result of the next US Presidential election”.
Well firstly, there are two elections: one in November to allocate the members of the electoral college and on in December when the electoral college votes (and there could technically be a third stage in January, if it went to the House). It would be more helpful if they’d defined it as ‘who will be inaugurated as president at the scheduled end of this current term’, or something similar.
On the specific point, I don’t know the actuarial stats, but I’d tend to agree - subject to Betfair ruling out the scenario, a thousand to one bet on the vice-presidential nominees is probably value, especially in McCain’s case, given his age.
9. I was counting that reason within the first one of ‘whose policies are closest to what I’d want for the country?’. I admit that I was generalising massively but fair point - I should also have included within reason a favourable assessment of all the other aspects that make up a quality leader.
48. It’s 22-11 to Obama
(Ignoring FL and MI, and putting NM in Clinton’s column, DC to Obama)
45 - And next week is half term for some of us too.
43 - I’d say that’s how the Clinton campaign is working though Socrates. The spin seems to be “we don’t need to rely on momentum as Hillary is the serious policy-heavy candidate.” So she’d go off the credibility of wins in TX/OH rather than try to gain momentum from them. Risky, but seems to be her best bet now that Obama is so strong. Still think and hope he will do it, but Hillary ain’t dead yet.
49 - there are probably three scenarios here:
1) President-Elect dies after the general election and before the electors meet
2) P-E dies after the electors meet in each state, and before the Senate certifies the result
3) P-E dies after the Senate certifies the result and before the inauguration
In (3), the VP-elect takes over (Section 3 of the 20th Amendment). It doesn’t seem so clear what happens in (1) and (2) though. Was there a precedent at some time in the 19th Century where a vice-presidential candidate died between the general election and the electors meeting?
47.Ted. I agree with your first sentence. The previous thread was about the relatively poor reporting by the BBC on election nights. I also agree with the views of most commentators here. The BBC should be much better informed and should inform us much better as to what is going on.
Similarly in this Democratic nomination election. Both the US and UK media and reporters appear to be very slow to pick up what RodCrosby has demonstrated so ably and many of us have also reckoned. Namely that it is extremely difficult NOW for Hillary to regain the lead on state delegates, however well she does in Texas and Ohio.
And one that tips slightly to Clinton - Missouri
McCain 42
Obama 40
McCain 43
Obama 42
Could the Dems really not win Missouri with either candidate? Bush was seven points ahead in 2004.
54. So you’re still depending on McCain winning the election (about 0.3 chance seems to be the consensus), McCain choosing Condoleeza (0.15), and McCain dying during that three month period. You’d have to believe there is a one in forty-five chance he dies during that three month period.
54. I think the second case would be the same as the third, in that the votes have already been cast so there is no going back, even if the candidate who would have been elected has already died at the time they are counted.
In the first case, presumably there would have to be some emergency meeting of the relevant party - a second convention? - where an alternative could be chosen. The Vice-President elect would presumably start as very heavy favourite, although whether the electors could be held to vote for that person is another matter. The vote for the vice-president could be even more interesting.
56. You must remember that these head-to-head suffer from the same problems as previous polls: they are weight by the demographics of who voted last election. Seeing that there is likely to be a big democratic turnout this time they are probably overstating McCain’s figures.
57: well, at age 72, he will live a median 10 years or so. So, that means there is a 50% chance he’ll make it that long. Divide the 10 years by 4 quarters and you get 40, so sounds about right. (Add in assasinations, etc… Plus, remember, if the candidate died mid-race there is a good chance the VP nominee would get the headline slot.)
58. I think there would severe popular pressure to choose the VP-Elect otherwise it could be argued that they were flaunting the will of the people. Even if the VP were unpopular with the party (or indeed not an actual member of the winning party) the election would hold. Of course in that ghoulish case the VP elect would select someone who was associated with the opposite wing or someone who would symbollically represent the PE. So we would have (as a hypothetical) Obama-Bill Clinton.
58 - thanks David. I looked up the precedent I mentioned, it was in fact 1872, when the losing Democrat (Horace Greeley) died between the general election and the electors meeting. The electors mostly found other Dems to vote for. I agree that if this happened today - certainly to the winning party - there would be the kind of special convention you mention to get consensus around a candidate.
The other interesting thing here though is that electors in some of the states went ahead and voted for the late Greeley anyway. The Senate, in the certification session, ruled these invalid. So, if you had a situation where the president-elect died after the electors had voted for him but before the Senate had certified those votes, what would happen?
The spirit of the 20th Amendment is that the VP-elect ought to become president in that case, but I’m not sure the letter of the amendment covers this - because there isn’t strictly speaking a “president-elect” until the Senate has certified the electors’ votes. Common sense is that the Senate would agree to treat the votes for the late nominee as if they were votes for the VP-elect as President. But does the Senate actually have the constitutional power to do this?
61. Though Clinton cannot be VP because he is constitutionally barred. I believe nobody who is ineligible to be President is eligible to be VP… but I may be wrong in that…
60 - replying to my own post - actually, that works out as a approx 1/80 chance of him dying in a given three month period…
If she wins both Texas and Ohio she’ll win the nomination. If she wins one and loses one, she’ll fight until the end. If she loses both, she’ll drop out straight away.
What’s happened to Roger? the site is so much less entertaining without him.
63. No, you’re right in that. The last line of Amendment 12: “But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.”
At the time that amendment was passed, there were no limits on how many terms a president could serve, but there are now and Bill has reached his maximum.
re 54 and 58 in the situation 1 it would be entirely up to the electors to decide who to vote for - the relevant party might try to give them a lead but I imagine that most of them would vote for the VP candidate for President and they would then have to vote for another person as VP.
The election you’re thinking of is 1872 when Greeley died after the general election but before the electors cast their votes. His electors voted for 4 different candidates.
66 - rules out Arnie for VP then too!
Rather amusing graphic in tomorrow’s Sun highlighting March 4th being Hillary’s Alamo.
67. I agree that the VP nominee would start as the default option. It would depend on the individuals in question though. Suppose Ike had met an untimely end in 1952. Would the Republican electors have been happy to vote for a very young and relatively inexperienced Richard Nixon to become 34th President, or might not some congressional elder or senior governor have become a preferred option? Dan Quayle might have had a job pressing his case as well.
re 70 you can bet though that in such a situation someone on the BBC will mention the dread phrase “constitutional crisis” when there would be no crisis at all. I bet we’ll also hear it after the next election here when no two parties can form a majority.
66 It’s not as clear as that. The 12th amendment is as you state, but the eligibility for President says ” “No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice”
The argument goes that Clinton would not be “elected” for a third time (if say Hillary fell under a bus), and hence would be eligible in those circumstances to succeed her. I don’t necessarilly agree but it is debateable.
Obama drug shocker:
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/foreign/tobyharnden/feb2008/obamadidnttakeenoughdrugs.htm
Could this change the race?
66. There is debate on that one. Clinton is not “constitutionally ineligible” to be the President. He has proved that by already holding the Presidency.
The XIIth amendment, ratified in 1804, “No person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.” was clearly referring to the Article II which laid out the criterion for eligibility: “No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty five years, and been fourteen Years a resident within the United States.”
The XXII amendment, ratified in 1951, sets limits on Presidential terms, but its language is quite specific “No person shall be *elected* to the office of the President more than twice…”
It does not talk about “eligibility”, but election. The framers of the XIIth amendment of course had no knowledge of the XXIInd amendment; conversely the framers of the XXIInd amendment had full knowledge of the XIIth, and chose not to link the two.
Furthermore, even if the XIIth amendment is somehow deemed to incorporate the provisions of XXIInd amendment in its definition of “eligibility”, that would not in itself prohibit a twice-elected President like Clinton from succeeding to the presidency other by election. There are other provisions in the Constitution which in theory could see this happen, such as the House choosing a president, or a former President who subsequently held the office of Speaker succeeding, in the event of the death of both a President and Vice-President..
re 72 it’s perfectly clear to me. Bill Clinton is constitutionally ineligible to the office of president by the 22nd amendment and hence barred from Vice President by the 12th.
Regarding the last thread, my favourite part of election night is without the exit poll. Its always dead on 10:00pm and theres this huge build up that at ten we’ll be giving the results of the exit polls, etc… Theres always that moment when they say, and now we can give you our exit poll results, that its a kind of heart in mouth moment, because up until then, all you have to go on is opinion polls, but you aren’t sure how its going to go. And you get like a Chris Tarrent pause before they give you the exit poll result, just to make it even more dramatic, and then….
The let down when you see that despite Tony Blair taking us until an illegal war on a lie, the Great British Public have still returned him with a 66 seat majority.
CAMO to win 6 terms!
re 74 I agree the 22nd amendment is poorly worded, something like “any person having serve two full terms as POTUS shall thenceforth be constitutionally ineligible to hold the office” would have been better.
75 The restriction is arguably on how many times a President can be elected, not how many times they can serve.
Even if he was eligible, he’d have to move out of the marital home, since if the President and VP are from the same state, then that states electoral votes don’t count.
I believe omeone legally challenged Cheney’s Wyoming residence and tried to argue he actually lived in Texas and hence get Texas’s votes disqualified.
re80 the electors of New York could vote for Hillary as president but then couldn’t vote for another New York resident as VP, or vice versa. So only one set of votes would be ineligible.
Just imagine what fun we could have if Jack Straw gets his way and we have a written constitution.
54. The XXth amendment surely covers all possibilities.
i) The Electors will vote for the VP candidate as Prez-elect. (They in theory could vote for anyone at all.) He therefore becomes the Prez-Elect and takes office normally on 20th January…
ii) Senate certifies the result, and VP takes office as Prez under provisions of XXth amendment.
iii) VP takes office as Prez under provisions of XXth amendment.
There are complicating factors such as if the general election produced an inconclusive result, and was to be determined by the House, or if both Prez and Veep candidates died, but they are pretty far-fetched…
I think on reflection you are right, Rod, and the Senate can just certify the deceased candidate as the President-Elect and by operation of the 20th Amendment, the VP-Elect becomes president, i.e. the 1872 precedent of disqualifying votes for a dead candidate needn’t be followed.
See pp 24-26 here…
http://books.google.com/books?id=XavG1NEYyzYC&pg=PA24&lpg=PA24&dq=death+of+president-elect&source=web&ots=m3hvSyjAlq&sig=0DvDwN_BgDUTXmKg-yNKfjzs0S0
81 Chris Thanks hadn’t realised that nuance.
83. In 1912, incumbent VP James Sherman died a week before polling day, and his name could not be removed from the ballot. Taft of course went down to heavy defeat, but the 8 electors pledged to Sherman as Veep cast their votes for Columbia University president Nicholas Butler. Presumably something similar would happen with a winning ticket…
83. re certification and scenario 2 @54. Yes, surely the Senate are merely “certifying” as legitimate the result of the Electors’ ballot. The fact the candidate has subsequently died/resigned is immaterial. He was alive when they voted…
Re: McCain. If there are any doctors in the house, what is the 5-year survival rate for a three-time myeloma patient aged nearly 72 ?
Statistically POOR, I would have thought, and certainly below average life expectancy…
Bit ghoulish tonight, mes amis? In my mind McCain is pretty much indestructible. The political equivalent of well seasoned teak.
Hmmmmm….just logged on late and absolutely no posts around???
Has everyone gone to bed or the site been down or something????
90. We are all asleep. Have you seen the time!
921. I’m here! But then its ten in the morning in my part of the world.
Mister Laz upthread disputes my account of the Nigella derriere. All I can say is that, when I was last within view of Nigella Lawson’s coccyx, it felt like earth had gained a second moon.
I’m entirely serious. When it was rumoured Nigella and Charles Saatchi might move to Cornwall they had to inform the Admiralty, as it was felt Nigella’s arse might, with its significant gravitational field, alter the times of the tides.
Of course it is possible her stupendous arse has decreased since then, but doesn’t that violate Newton’s famous Second Law of Butts? That they always get bigger? That once the “big end” has gone, it’s time to trade the car?
If she has indeed shrunk then it is a miracle and I think the Pope should be told.*
[*The acceptability of this vulgar post is premised on the fact that you are all in bed, so I can get away with such laddishness. Thankyou]
Test
Just testing