What if Trump DOES drop out?

[acbytesla]

It is crazy that this is even being discussed. With anyone else, nobody would even consider the possibility. But Donald is such a disaster that maybe it could happen. And he's only officially been the nominee for less than two weeks!

I couldn't have imagined discussing it a week ago. I didn't think there would be a Fukushima style meltdown.

 

[JoeMorgue]

I can't imagine a scenario in which a party having to withdraw their own nominee is ever going to be politically advantageous.

I'd like to hope this whole fiasco will lead a shift wherein the Presidential election is more than simply choosing between the two ordained candidates that the two parties have deemed to tell us peasants we are allowed to vote for, but that's probably wishful thinking.

 

[Meadmaker]

Pl

There are NO provisions in the party rules for removing Trump against his will. None. While there are no State laws governing the Republican party such an action would be judged as a breach of contract between the parties and Donald would be entitled to injunctive relief prohibiting his removal.

The only way Donald will be replaced is if he dies or goes willingly. And replacements must be submitted to most states 60 days before the election.

While I agree with the last part, I'm not so sure of the first. In the extraordinary event that a state party defied the national party and circulated nominating petitions for someone other than the national nominee, I wonder what laws would govern it? To provide injunctive relief in such a situation would mean that a judge would have to take perfectly legitimate citizen petitions and throw them out based on.....what? That's some pretty extraordinary interference in an election process.

However, this is all hypothetical. It isn't going to happen. For purely practical reasons, even the places where Trump is hated no state party would actually go that far. I'm just wondering if it is a legal option to even do so.

On a related note, if Trump does drop out, which is also incredibly unlikely but not absolutely outside of the realm of possibility, do they have the right to replace him even then? I know that some states have rules about replacing names on ballots for the partisan slot. If the nominee has won the primary, his name goes in. There's no provision for the nominee dropping out voluntarily. I don't know how that works in the case where the process for naming a candidate in a state includes things that happen outside of a state, including at a private gathering such as a nominating convention.

 

[erwinl]

What of the chances that Trump declares himself an independant candidate?
If for some reason, I don't know, he is fed up with the critical tones from the GOP, declares them losers and cuts himself loose from them?

What would happen then?
His name would be on the ballots (let's imagine, the magical dates in the states have passed), but on the GOP party. Would votes for him count as a vote for the GOP replacement guy (Pence?), or would they still be for Trump?

 

[Nursefoxfire]

I've seen that Trump is already laying out the excuse train for his eventual defeat in November by claiming that the election results will be rigged.

I wonder if he's just going to use this as a reason to ease himself out of the process entirely.

 

[Meadmaker]

What of the chances that Trump declares himself an independant candidate?
If for some reason, I don't know, he is fed up with the critical tones from the GOP, declares them losers and cuts himself loose from them?

What would happen then?
His name would be on the ballots (let's imagine, the magical dates in the states have passed), but on the GOP party. Would votes for him count as a vote for the GOP replacement guy (Pence?), or would they still be for Trump?

A vote for Trump is a vote for Trump, regardless of which party it's in. The Constitution has no provision for parties. You vote for people.


Although, to be fair, I suppose the Constitution also has no provision for voting, so I guess it depends on each state's law. Still, I would be very surprised if there were any state where a vote cast for a name on a ballot could ever be counted as a vote cast for some other name that wasn't on the ballot.

ETA: In New York state there is (or was? I assume they are still around) something called the Conservative Party. It was founded by William F. Buckley. They run a slate of candidates. If the Republican candidate is sufficiently conservative for them, the Conservative Party candidate is same as the Republcan, and their votes are added together.

 

[Tony Stark]

If Donald does drop out he is going to claim it is because the GOP is corrupt, in Hillary's pocket, sabotaging him, ect. And many of his crazy moron followers would believe him.

 

[Mader Levap]

I'd like to hope this whole fiasco will lead a shift wherein the Presidential election is more than simply choosing between the two ordained candidates that the two parties have deemed to tell us peasants we are allowed to vote for, but that's probably wishful thinking.

That would require changing voting system. Current voting system in USA is about worst possible and practically forces one guy/gal from one party for at most two parties, ever. And USA is supposed to be paragon of democracy...

For example, with transferrable voting both dems and repubs could safely field more than one candidate in general elections, since they would assume that most people voting for candidate A will mark as second choice candidate B from same side. So both Hillary+Bernie and Trump+Cruz+Kasich or whatever.

As a bonus, that would make less bitter and infight-y primaries and would remove one major problem with people enraged by their candidate not being nominee (*cough* berniebros *cough*).

This kind of reform would not be enough, of course, but would be nice start.

 

[JoeMorgue]

If Donald does drop out he is going to claim it is because the GOP is corrupt, in Hillary's pocket, sabotaging him, ect. And many of his crazy moron followers would believe him.

Which is the problem (speaking from a purely political perspective.)

Trump right now has two "bases." His original cult of personality followers which as you say aren't going anywhere in significant numbers and the more general Republican voter base.

Split those groups and the general election is going to be a slaughter.

 

[erwinl]

A vote for Trump is a vote for Trump, regardless of which party it's in. The Constitution has no provision for parties. You vote for people.


Although, to be fair, I suppose the Constitution also has no provision for voting, so I guess it depends on each state's law. Still, I would be very surprised if there were any state where a vote cast for a name on a ballot could ever be counted as a vote cast for some other name that wasn't on the ballot.

ETA: In New York state there is (or was? I assume they are still around) something called the Conservative Party. It was founded by William F. Buckley. They run a slate of candidates. If the Republican candidate is sufficiently conservative for them, the Conservative Party candidate is same as the Republcan, and their votes are added together.

The ballots I've seen online from past elections group the candidates per party and per two (president- and vice-president wannabe). Would Pence follow Trump?
Either way (in my example, which I would not see as completely impossible, seeing the way Trump handles criticism) the combination Republican/Trump/Pence would simply not exist anymore.

How about straight party votes? Would they count? I wouldn't think so, but what would I know (being of decadent European stock and such).

Anyway. Interesting times have arrived.

 

[TragicMonkey]

Perhaps there will be a Constitutional amendment completely laying out and refining the election process. Standardizing it, making provisions for various possible scenarios, and allowing a do-over in cases of complete crazypants meltdown.

 

[erwinl]

Perhaps there will be a Constitutional amendment completely laying out and refining the election process. Standardizing it, making provisions for various possible scenarios, and allowing a do-over in cases of complete crazypants meltdown.

I would think some kind of change will be in the offering after this election yes.

 

[JoeMorgue]

At this point the whole electoral college is inexcusable, but that's a whole other huge discussion.

 

[TragicMonkey]

We've already had one weirdo presidential election in my lifetime, where the results weren't clear and the Supreme Court had to step in. That seemed pretty strange, and an obvious breakdown of the process that should have been figured out. When a process breaks you analyze it and set in place either safeguards to prevent that same kind of thing from happening again, or a policy of how to deal with it when it does--a policy everyone knows ahead of time so it doesn't come as a hideous surprise.

A second weirdo election shenanigans surely would justify a complete examination of the entire process and new consideration of every step and imaginable outcomes.

 

[Crossbow]

If Trump does drop out, then the Republicans could call another convention and put forth another candidate.

But if they do such a thing, then they will be handing the election to Clinton and destroy themselves for some years into the future.
But on the other hand, if they do not do such a thing, then they will be handing the election to Clinton and destroy themselves for some years into the future.

Quite a few Republicans are kicking themselves silly over the Trump debacle and it could not happen to a nicer bunch of guys.

Originally, many of the stupid, idiotic, lying Republicans thought that defeating Hillary Clinton would be like shooting fish in a barrel. She has very high unfavorable ratings, she has a good bit of the Bill Clinton baggage, she has the Benghazi case to contend with, and there is the issue of her private e-mail server. All of these things would make it so easy for any of the many Republican candidates who were lining up to defeat her.

However, it is turning out that the most stupid, most idiotic, most lying Republican of them all is the one man who is providing such an easy victory for Hillary Clinton.

 

[acbytesla]

While I agree with the last part, I'm not so sure of the first. In the extraordinary event that a state party defied the national party and circulated nominating petitions for someone other than the national nominee, I wonder what laws would govern it? To provide injunctive relief in such a situation would mean that a judge would have to take perfectly legitimate citizen petitions and throw them out based on.....what? That's some pretty extraordinary interference in an election process.

However, this is all hypothetical. It isn't going to happen. For purely practical reasons, even the places where Trump is hated no state party would actually go that far. I'm just wondering if it is a legal option to even do so.

On a related note, if Trump does drop out, which is also incredibly unlikely but not absolutely outside of the realm of possibility, do they have the right to replace him even then? I know that some states have rules about replacing names on ballots for the partisan slot. If the nominee has won the primary, his name goes in. There's no provision for the nominee dropping out voluntarily. I don't know how that works in the case where the process for naming a candidate in a state includes things that happen outside of a state, including at a private gathering such as a nominating convention.

The Republican party has a set of published bylaws governing it and it's nominee. The party has its name on the ballot in all 50 States and Guam, Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands. WhIle I'm not sure if the State parties handle the logistics of ballots on the State and local level, I can't imagine a scenario where it could go rogue and put whatever name they want.

Also, I imagine that even if there isn't signed agreements between the State and National party, their simple participation kin the National Convention would be seen as an agreement to the rules.

This all said, if you had a Republican legislature and Governor you could create a State Party Republican nominee and rush something like that through. But, Trump and Pence's name would be on the ballot as well on the Republican ticket.

State election laws govern all this and it varies from State to State. There is a ton of minutiae that we could delve through, but it would be impossible for Trump to be "replaced as the Republican nominee on all the ballots without his agrrement. I'd imagine alternate names could be named but his name would stay.

 

[NoahFence]

They may not nominate anybody. Just take the loss, reflect on what went wrong and move forward. They could set up a commission to determine what happened, and make sure in the next four years they work on it. Like outreach to minority communities, women, that sort of thing.

Have they tried that yet?

 

[sunmaster14]

That would require changing voting system. Current voting system in USA is about worst possible and practically forces one guy/gal from one party for at most two parties, ever. And USA is supposed to be paragon of democracy...

It is not supposed to be a paragon of democracy. It is supposed to be a paragon of freedom. As long as the people believe in, understand, and defend the Constitution, the institutions will be strong, and it will matter little who the President is. To take an American football analogy, the President will be restricted to playing between the 40 yard lines. Democracy as a method for choosing the optimal leaders is idiotic. There is no wisdom of crowds at work because of the enormous cognitive biases which candidates can exploit. However, Democracy is a very effective mechanism for providing what most people can accept as a fair result. Bestowing legitimacy on our elected leaders is far more important than getting the best leaders.

 

[Crossbow]

They may not nominate anybody. Just take the loss, reflect on what went wrong and move forward. They could set up a commission to determine what happened, and make sure in the next four years they work on it. Like outreach to minority communities, women, that sort of thing.

Have they tried that yet?

They sort of tried that about four years ago when the Republicans did a very good post-mortem on the Romney Campaign.

In short, the Republican leadership fully admitted the obvious facts: if Republicans want to win the general election, then Republicans need to connect better with women, minority groups and immigrants because it is self-defeating to try to appeal to the white upper-class people since those people are becoming less and less numerous.

So instead of following that excellent advice, the Republicans went into their usual stupid, idiotic, lying mode and put forth someone is the exact opposite of the type of person that they really need.

 

[The Don]

So instead of following that excellent advice, the Republicans went into their usual stupid, idiotic, lying mode and put forth someone is the exact opposite of the type of person that they really need.

The same dynamic is playing out in the UK Labour Party (although in this case it's a reprise of the woes of the 1970's and 1980's), the party faithful (who are, compared to population at large - extremist) vote for the candidate that they think is most appealing as opposed to the candidate that is most electable by the general populace.

If the GOP wants to make sure that the "correct" candidate is chosen then they either need something in place that does the same job as the Democratic Party superdelegates or even remove the party rank and file altogether.