Social Question

rojo's avatar

So, just for grins, Clinton has an inoperable brain tumor and has to pull out of the race. Who do the Dems replace her with? Can they even do that at this point?

Asked by rojo (24159points) September 12th, 2016

As asked.

Observing members: 0 Composing members: 0

17 Answers

Jeruba's avatar

Whoa. You mean this to be hypothetical, right? Because it’s worded as a declarative statement.

rojo's avatar

Yes, that is correct @Jeruba. Sorry, I meant for the “just for grins” statement to make that clear but realize now that said statement could sound like something a Trump supporter would say. My Bad.

“THIS IS HYPOTHETICAL”

stanleybmanly's avatar

It doesn’t really matter who the dems might throw into the ring. They would have considerable difficulty locating an individual as repulsive as Trump to field in the race. Personally, I would vote for Clinton in a coffin before I would consider the Donald.

YARNLADY's avatar

Isn’t Sanders the obvious choice?

stanleybmanly's avatar

It is to me.

rojo's avatar

What about the VP choice, Tim Caine?
Would you/they have to have a mini-convention?

Lightlyseared's avatar

It doesn’t matter. She wasn’t going to win anyway. Trump is way better at the ‘manipulating the public’ thing.

Seek's avatar

If it should happen, the DNC would gather its National Committee (350 people) and they would pick someone.

Could be anyone. Could be Bernie, could be Joe Biden, could be me (well, it couldn’t be me, I’m not old enough). Who knows.

ucme's avatar

Chelsea :D

Aethelwine's avatar

It should be Sanders.

Bernie Sanders did not assign his delegates to Clinton at the Democratic National Convention and he had the second-highest number of delegates in the Democratic party.

BellaB's avatar

I’m really growing to like Mr. Kaine as I follow his campaign progress. He seems like he’d be a better president than the candidates the Democrats had in front of them. All those oldies.

dappled_leaves's avatar

Under your scenario, yes, they should replace her with Bernie Sanders. That would be the smart and fair thing to do, but when has the DNC ever done the smart or fair thing? I think the only candidates that make any sense are Sanders or Elizabeth Warren, and I think if she believed that she could influence the decision, she’d refuse and support Sanders as the candidate.

There’s no other candidate with a hope in hell of winning. I would hope they hadn’t forgotten Kerry and Gore.

Love_my_doggie's avatar

The procedure would be much like the Democratic party’s superdelegates, except on steroids. The members of the party’s national committees would get together for a vote, and the candidate with the majority of votes would become the replacement nominee.

Despite having been a Bernie Sanders supporter, I’d be cheering for Tim Kaine.

CWOTUS's avatar

I’ve wondered about this in the past, but it has really come to the fore in this election cycle. Given that the American electoral system runs on a strict timetable with an election on a date certain, there seems to be scant provision for dealing with the disappearance, death, resignation or otherwise last-minute removal of a major candidate. It has happened in the past, I think in non-Presidential elections (wasn’t the last major case the election of a Senator from Missouri who then died before he could be sworn in?). But we have no Constitutional way to either delay the election to enable selection of a replacement candidate, nor the necessary time built in to introduce that candidate to the electorate.

I would not be at all surprised to see a Constitutional Amendment proposed to handle this very issue within the next few years. For now, it seems that the election would have to move forward as planned, because for the President to cancel a presidential election by executive order would smack too much of tyranny, and there seems to be insufficient time for Congress to pass anything more than a stopgap bill for the President to sign in time for it to occur. (And that’s even assuming the Congress as currently constituted would be amenable to a delay in the first place.)

Zaku's avatar

I don’t get how anyone who supported Sanders over Clinton would be for Tim Kaine. Everything I’ve seen about him shows him to be a generic corporate tool in Democrat’s clothing.

Darth_Algar's avatar

@CWOTUS ” (wasn’t the last major case the election of a Senator from Missouri who then died before he could be sworn in?)”

Mel Carnahan, who at the time was serving as governor of Missouri and running for the US Senate. He was killed in a plane crash a couple of weeks before the election. The lt. governor took over as acting governor, as per the usual procedure, and the state Democratic party chose his widow, Jean, to finish the campaign. Granted by that point it was too late to change the ballots and Mel was posthumously elected to the US Senate. Since a dead man can’t serve the Senate seat was officially vacant, and the Missouri governor appointed Jean to the seat. Jean Carnahan served a partial term as US Senator from Missouri before being defeated in a special election.

Answer this question

Login

or

Join

to answer.
Your answer will be saved while you login or join.

Have a question? Ask Fluther!

What do you know more about?
or
Knowledge Networking @ Fluther