If the leading candidate suspends their campaign, the runner up should be the nominee, agreed?

[morningfog]

Hypothetically, in the unlikely event that the leading candidate for the nomination suspends their campaign for some unforeseeable reason, the voice of the people -- namely, the candidate who is in a close second -- should be made the nominee, right?

Do we all agree on that?

[litlbilly]

1. Yes, absolutely

[1StrongBlackMan]

2. That, to me, depends how "close" the "closed second" is ...

-300 million in the popular vote isn't close ... neither is -268 in the pledged delegate count.

[morningfog]

10. HOLY SHIT! 300 MILLION!!! That would not be close.

[1StrongBlackMan]

17. Oops ... 3 million. The keyboard stuck

[1StrongBlackMan]

58. I don't give a single damn what you are inclined to believe.

Now what?

[AgingAmerican]

61. Hillary won the popular vote in the 2008 primaries

Because 'popular vote' is irreverent in our system, Obama was the nominee.

[1StrongBlackMan]

63. Did you see what I wrote? It contained 2 conditions ...

Neither of which meet my estimation of "close".

[AgingAmerican]

65. Irrelevent

If she or anyone involved is indicted OR if indictments are recommended, she is toast. If the incompetent DNC throws someone in besides Sanders, Trump will be the next president.

Some Democrats would clearly rather see Trump win than Sanders. This is because Sanders will kill the corporate goose that lays the golden eggs. If Clinton is forced out, and Sanders steps in, Bernie Sanders is our next president. Just the facts.

Deal with it.

[1StrongBlackMan]

66. Of course any and everything that disagrees with ...

Your political opinion is irrelevant.

Funny ... you spout fantasy and tell me to deal with it? No thank you. I'd far rather deal with reality.

[AgingAmerican]

67. Facts, deal with them

If you would rather have Trump than Sanders in, the consequences are on you.

[1StrongBlackMan]

68. I do not accept your frame because ...

Garbage in - Garbage out.

[AgingAmerican]

69. Of course you don't because you are a professed Sanders hater

[1StrongBlackMan]

71. I don't hate Sanders ...

He was just my 3rd choice, after O'Malley suspended, and he remains my second choice, today.

[AgingAmerican]

72. Judging by what you have said about him in the past

...implying he is a racist, among other things, I doubt your sincerity on this subject.

Have a wonderful rest of your day.

[1StrongBlackMan]

75. LOL ... Your interpretation of what I "implied" ... LOL

I have neither said nor implied that Sanders is a racist.

When you have to make shit up, i.e., interpret what I "implied" that interpretation says more about you than me.

[George II]

109. Obama won the popular vote by more than 41,000 votes, so....

...he had more pledged delegates and more popular votes after the last primary, and Clinton conceded at that time.

Will Sanders be so gracious and unifying?

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/democratic_vote_count.html

Popular Vote Total Obama 17,535,458 48.1% Clinton 17,493,836 48.0% Obama +41,622 +0.1%

[madokie]

62. How about me

do you care what I believe?

Bernie Sanders will be our next President.

[1StrongBlackMan]

64. You either.

[ljm2002]

122. I don't blame you...

...my post was unnecessarily rude and uncalled for and I apologize.

[rock]

81. It doesn't matter

300 million, 30 million, 3 million. None of these is close.

[larkrake]

52. its damn close

[1StrongBlackMan]

60. I guess it's a matter of perspective and ...

Wishfulness.

[Ash_F]

73. Nobody knows what the popular vote is due to our terrible system

Last I heard Sanders had about 46% of pledged delegates.

[CorporatistNation]

124. Not A Soul Is Or Can Be Closer... So Bernie IS IT! Or we Gonna Get Back To THIS?

e.g., MSNBC To the deniers... Watch THIS Video... It is not comforting to think that she may well be the Democratic Nominee...

Hillary really betrayed Andrea Mitchell... The entire context of this report was of a solemn nature... A Funeral so to speak...

Andrea Mitchell "I do not see this report as ...ANYTHING BUT... DEVASTATING!"

Chuck Todd "After this I don't think that she could get confirmed for Attorney General!"

Lots of FIBBING by Hillary here.. for more than a year!

[Txbluedog]

3. You don't make the rules

The DNC and the RNC makes these for their respective parties---so if Hillary is forced to suspend won't make Bernie the nominee

[morningfog]

16. snort

[pdsimdars]

20. We'll see, after all we are a government of, by and FOR the people. Let's see if they can

so blatantly thwart the will of the people.

[larkrake]

53. true Party rules decide, but toss Bernie and the country will not show up to vote

I dont think DNC will commit suicide

[hack89]

4. I thought it was up to the super delegates to make the best choice for the nation

regardless of the vote?

[morningfog]

12. LOL!

[hack89]

19. I take that as a yes? nt

[Ash_F]

74. Hopefully the last year we use this system

If I am not wrong, the pledged delegates are released if their candidate suspends and can vote for whoever.

This is the less complicated situation. What would truly be a fiasco is if she holds on to the nomination and gets charged after the convention, or even just a few weeks before the GE.

Then it would be too late. The entire D ticket would get wrecked, all the way down the line.

[LoverOfLiberty]

5. Disagree

The leader's delegates do not necessarily go to #2.

I think the party would chose a Democrat to represent them in November.

[morningfog]

13. HAHAHA.

[Demsrule86]

6. No

I want someone who can win a general which Bernie can't.

[morningfog]

14. Yall don't disappoint!

[Ferd Berfel]

7. Ramming Biden (or anyone else that hasn't been running) down our throats

in this circumstance, is a suicidal move for the Party.

If Clinton suspends the Party will need to get behind Bernie or it's the end of the party

[ljm2002]

33. I do expect the nominee will be Clinton...

...but IF something should happen and and she were to suspend her campaign, and the party tries to choose someone other than Bernie, given his very strong showing during this primary season... there will be hell to pay.

Not that I would expect the party to do the right thing in this case.

I hope it does not come to that.

[loyalsister]

83. One possibility I wonder about is Martin O'Malley

Suppose Hillary released her delegates and asked them to vote for him. He has at least been a declared candidate, and while the MSM race turned focus to the more hostile Hillary - Bernie confrontation, he did have some supporters and stayed classy while he was in the race.

Could he re-emerge with less controversy and division than if they went to someone who was never in this race? Not sure how it could be orchestrated, but I wonder if it could be a unifying strategy.

[Ferd Berfel]

86. O'Malley would do worse than Clinton

no real name recognition, no republican or independent crossover.

suicide

[Algernon Moncrieff]

95. If Sanders had impeccable credentials as a lifelong Democrat, you might have a point

He doesn't. He's made a career out of being I-VT. He has neither a majority of recorded votes nor a majority of pledged delegates. In the highly unlikely event that Hillary were to exit, the party would be well within it's right to nominate Biden, Kerry, O'Malley, Warren, or Debbie Wasserman-Schultz (OK - I'm kidding on that last one).

[Ferd Berfel]

138. Bernie has championed Democratic Ideals his entire life

and more so than any DINO's and RW Corporate sock-puppets that call themselves Democratic today. Certainly since the 80's when the Clinton's sold the Party to the Koch Bros and the Party began pushing the right wing agenda. Bernie has always represented the Democratic Party as it was when I first started voting in 1968. I think if the party had not taken the Corporate turn in the 80's that he might well have joined the party sooner.

[Algernon Moncrieff]

139. Then he should have joined the party

If D-VT is good enough for other Vermonters like Leahy, Shumlin, and Howard Dean, it should have been good enough for Sanders.

Only Spartacist Youth League types believe that Hillary Clinton is pushing a "right wing" agenda. The "right wing" is terrified of a Clinton presidency, and is backing Donald trump. Get your facts straight.

[NorthCarolina]

97. I don't see how they could possibly skip over Bernie an substitute

some other candidate, be it Biden or anyone, who was not even running in the primary contests. Who in the party would accept that?

[stillwaiting]

128. Corporatists that want to stay aboard the Status Quo Express.

It is a one way track, ya know.

[Cobalt Violet]

8. The party will have a lot of problems on it's hands if it's not the case.

He's won a lot of states, has gotten a lots of votes, polls very well against Trump, is popular and liked.

They better decide quickly if they want to win in November or not.

[pdsimdars]

21. or if they're willing to accept at least 4 years of Trump in order for them to TRY to maintain

their control of power.

[WheelWalker]

9. Well, depends on when the suspension occurs...

If before the convention, you would still have to have a vote of delegates.

If after the convention, wouldn't the VP nominee have something to say about it... if not a claim to the party banner?

[Renew Deal]

18. Things get complicated after the convention

The candidate can't be replaced on many/most ballots. So in most cases people would have to vote for Hillary's electors. If Hillary/dems got 270 electors then the electors would have to name someone. It would get crazy and probably wouldn't work.

[Exilednight]

30. the VP would assume office, thus leaving the VP vacant which would

Require a presidential appointment with congressional approval.

[Bob41213]

37. I don't think this is true.

You don't vote for a person, you vote for a board of electors. The electors vote for whomever they please.

[Algernon Moncrieff]

100. This is from 2008, but explains what happens....sorta

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2008/09/dead_by_election_day.html

Each party has its own protocol for this scenario, but in neither case does the running mate automatically take over the ticket. If John McCain were to die before the election, the rules of the Republican Party authorize the Republican National Committee to fill the vacancy, either by reconvening a national convention or by having RNC state representatives vote. The new nominee must receive a majority vote to officially become the party candidate. If Barack Obama were to die before the election, the Democratic Party's charter and bylaws state that responsibility for filling that vacancy would fall to the Democratic National Committee, but the rules do not specify how exactly the DNC would go about doing that. (Congress could also pass a special statute and push back Election Day, giving the dead candidate's party time to regroup.)


What happens if the party doesn't have time to select and endorse a new candidate? In 2000, Akhil Reed Amar outlined for Slate some of the head-scratching scenarios that might occur if a candidate died just before the election, without enough time to prep new ballots or to decide how votes should be counted.


The outcome would be a little more straightforward—though not necessarily more politically satisfying—if the candidate dies between the general election on Nov. 4 but before the Electoral College votes on Dec. 15. There's no federal law that mandates how electors must cast their votes; theoretically, if the candidate to whom they were pledged dies and their party has not made a preferred successor clear, electors can vote for their party's VP candidate, a third-party candidate, or a leading preconvention contender within their own party. Under this scenario, however, individual state laws have the potential to make things murky, given that each state has the power to determine exactly how its electoral votes are to be cast and distributed.


Bonus Explainer: What if the candidate dies after the election but before the inauguration on Jan. 20? The 20th Amendment states that if the president-elect dies before beginning his term, then the vice president-elect assumes his or her spot. However, the point at which a candidate officially becomes "president-elect" is debatable. He or she definitely assumes the title after Jan. 6, when a joint session of Congress officially counts the Electoral College votes and declares a winner. But the shift could be said to occur immediately after the Electoral College vote. (See Pages 2 and 3 of this PDF article from the Arkansas Law Review.)

[Bob41213]

35. When does the Democratic Party have to name their nominee?

I mean I know they do at the convention, but surely they don't send out a certified letter to each state that day saying here's our nominee that day. I assume there are state by state deadlines to put the official name on the ballot.

[Renew Deal]

47. Don't know all the states

But the convention has legal bearing in some states. So I'm pretty sure it goes out right away. I doubt there is much that can be done with letters and deadlines.

[Bob41213]

56. Hmm, I don't know for sure and you may be right....

Maybe I'm confusing the third party type deadlines.

[djean111]

80. Nobody voted for the VP.

IMO the VP only counts after a president is elected.

And, since it seems Hillary's VP may very well be chosen with an eye to demographics, and not the issues, it would make no sense at all to have the VP as the candidate.

Ironically, I would be thrilled to vote for Liz Warren in that scenario, but would not vote for Hillary even if Warren is her VP.

[WheelWalker]

84. After the convention, the delegates will have voted for the party VP candidate... albeit by

acclamation, perhaps, but still...

[djean111]

89. However it goes, I will be voting on the issues.

No votes for Third Wayers. Bottom line.

[TimPlo]

117. Actually you do vote for either.

The 12th Amendment lays out the procedures for electing. We vote on electoral college. Then they vote on separate votes for POTUS and VP.

Snip from the Constitution

"The Electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves; they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice-President, and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and all persons voted for as Vice-President and of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate."

[djean111]

120. I meant in the primaries.

The OP is positing that the nominee stands down during the campaign, after the convention, before the GE.

[Renew Deal]

11. The voice of the people is the winner

If something happens to thay person all bets are off.

[morningfog]

15. heehee

[NCTraveler]

22. Disagree. The will of the people would no longer be recognized.

All delegates should be open to vote for the name on the ballot they chose.

All of this is a waste of time. Clinton is the nominee.

[morningfog]

38. "The will of the people would no longer be recognized." Got it.

[geek tragedy]

23. lol, just asking for a friend? 14 more days, clock is ticking nt

[JonLeibowitz]

32. This post will not be off-limits in any version of DU, keep dreaming.

[msongs]

24. no. the candidate has pledged delegates which can be assigned to another candidate.

[barrow-wight]

25. No.

I would much rather they give it to Biden or Warren or any Dem but Bernie.

[felix_numinous]

26. The people's choice for the Democratic nominee

whether we believe he comes in first or second, is Bernie Sanders clearly.

These results will determine if the DNC is willing to honor or reject the millions of supporters who registered as Democrats for Bernie Sanders. This decision will either keep us in the party of drive us out. Up to them.

[valerief]

27. Unless the runner up isn't a darling of the DC lobbyists. nt

[grasswire]

28. I object to "suspends"

....because I don't want that person refreshing the campaign.

"withdraws" is a better word.

[Waiting For Everyman]

29. Of course.

[Shadowflash]

34. You are correct,

Though, it'll never happen. Clinton is THIS close to almost being president and there is NO WAY she'd drop out now, no matter WHAT legal troubles she is having.

You'd have to pry the nomination from her cold, dead fingers. Her being president is the one and only non-negotiable core belief she has.

You'd have more luck trying to talk Cruella DeVille out of getting a Dalmatian skin coat.

[StevieM]

36. First of all, Hillary is going to be nominated. She will win the GE in November.

And she will become the president in January 2017.

Second, if for some reason the presumptive nominee in a given election year cannot continue their campaign that does not mean the runner-up gets the nomination.

[morningfog]

40. Why not? How undemocratic.

[geek tragedy]

41. people hoping for a coup by superdelegate have no moral standing to invoke democratic principles nt

[morningfog]

42. I am not hoping for such a coup, so not sure your point.

I am asking, if the leading candidate leaves the race, shouldn't the voice of the people be heard with the one who is still running and is in a close second?

[geek tragedy]

46. Clinton is not leaving the race. nt

[morningfog]

79. I didn't say she was. I can't predict the future.

[StevieM]

44. So if Bernie got more votes and pledged delegates than Hillary, and became the presumptive nominee,

and then dropped out for some reason, you would support making Hillary the nominee?

I can honestly say that I would be opposed to nominating her under those conditions. And I don't believe she would seek the nomination under those circumstances. It would just be awkward to have the defeated candidate as the nominee.

Not that any of this matters because Hillary is going to be nominated and I strongly believe that she will be elected.

[larkrake]

51. Delegates vote their choice, be it the town librarian or number two in primaries

[firebrand80]

39. In this case, yes. Not in all cases.

It would depend on how strong of a campaign the second place finisher ran. I don't think a candidate that won 2 states and was out by Super Tuesday should necessarily be the nominee.

However, in this instance, Bernie should be the nominee. Whatever is GE weaknesses might be, picking someone else would be a long-term disaster for the party.

[morningfog]

43. Thanks for an honest answer. I agree.

This is why Bernie should not drop out before the convention.

[firebrand80]

45. Whether or not he suspends his campaign June 8th is immaterial

The delegates are his

[ecstatic]

48. If Clinton suspends, O'Malley should get it. nt

[larkrake]

49. If that person has a large percentage of the primary votes, yes

[dana_b]

50. I do

It's the only fair thing to do. That candidate worked and campaigned for the nomination. Some of us also worked for the candidate. To throw it to someone else who did not EARN it would be a huge slap in the face to that candidate and the supporters.

[anotherproletariat]

54. No, not if they have not shown loyalty to the party. In that case, the party leaders should be able

to chose a candidate who they feel best represents the values of the party.

[Ash_F]

85. What are the values of the party to you?

[eastwestdem]

98. Absolutely agree. Someone who isn't 'playing nice' should not be a nominee of the party. nt

[WhiteTara]

55. Oh, I didn't realize you were on the rules committee

with the DNC. Let us know how that goes.

[PATRICK]

57. The Sanders Exception

won't even be noted as they laugh that one off. The supers will go exclusively to Biden or "someone else" in the right center. "Should" applies to principles not the actual politics as it stands. Yet the votes everywhere might be split in the "everyone talking not about Bernie caucus". No Biden= bloodbath and leakage might put Sanders over. Nothing automatic or clean about it. certainly not principle and certainly not the public.

It doesn't even matter if the preferred frontrunner actually had an insufficient lead or losing delegate total. They will not be there for Sanders. A refreshing lack of scenarios for last chance hopes.

[AgingAmerican]

59. Of course, otherwise the election is a lost cause

[B Calm]

70. Pretty hard not to agree, unless you are a hillbro.

[Gomez163]

76. And if a unicorn bites me in the butt I bet I turn pink.

[Idontthinkso]

77. yep

[Vinca]

78. I would hope so, but I've heard Biden as a candidate in lieu of Bernie.

I like Biden, but that would really piss me off.

[Lizzie Poppet]

82. Any other response by the party would mean its end as a major political force.

It would make it clear even to the dimmest of bulbs that the party no longer represents anything but moneyed interests.

[Algernon Moncrieff]

87. Your scenario is uncharted water

If HRC had to drop, that does not mean Bernie wins or loses. HRC could endorse Bernie and pledge her delegates to him. Or, they could abstain on the first ballott. Same with the SDs. So if we get past the 1st ballott with no nominee, anything could happen --Gore, Biden, Warren, O'Malley...or Sanders.

[morningfog]

90. We are in uncharted waters.

Bernie taking it to the convention alone would make it unprecedented.

[okasha]

91. Far from unprecedented.

I continue to be amazed at the persistence of "Hillary withdraws" fantasies.

Fortunately, the majority of the electorate is not thus afflicted. Hillary will be the Dem candidate, and she's polling stronger than Trump now that reality is setting in and the novelty has worn off.

Madame President.

Practice it. It's not painful.

[morningfog]

93. Unprecedented.

When have two candidates taken it to the convention, neither securing the nomination through pledged delegates and neither withdrawing?

When has a candidate ever been connected to a criminal investigation by the FBI going into the convention?

I have no fantasy of her withdrawing. I don't expect her to. But the FBI criminal investigation does not turn on the whims of the majority of the electorate, does it?

[okasha]

104. 1960 was an actual brokered Dem convention.

Humphrey's convention devolved not only into deals in the smoke filled rooms but a police riot.

Etc. on the R side.

Do you realize we haven't always had primaries?

[morningfog]

106. How did the super delegates vote then?

Oh, right, that was before the super delegate system.

Yes. I am well aware the the nomination process is not a democratic process historically and that residual is ever present.

As I said, it has never happened that two candidates have taken it to the convention where neither has clinched the nomination threshold through PDs alone.

[okasha]

110. Uhm, they were all effectively supers at the time,

selected strictly by and for the local political organizations.

You have a particularly nasty transparency page, by the way.

[morningfog]

111. There is nothing particular about it, look around.

[Joob]

101. Bernie would be the smart move. If it's Biden, bye then.

I'd view Democrats as I do Republicans and Go look for a new party to build on.

[beachbumbob]

88. Nope...if it happens during convention goes to open rules

If it happens afterwards..the DNC will name...sanders will never be the nominee

[George II]

92. What a silly idea, but in that vein.....

....if, after the primaries are completed one candidate has hundreds of delegates more than the other, should the runner-up suspend his campaign?

[morningfog]

94. When neither has secured the number needed to be nominated and

one is connected to a criminal investigation by the FBI? No.

[George II]

96. Sanders isn't connected to a criminal investigation of the FBI, is he?

By early evening a week from tonight, one candidate WILL have secured the number needed to be nominated.

Game. Set. Match. On to November.

[morningfog]

99. Hillary is connected to a criminal investigation by the FBI, unfortunately.

This time next week she will have secured a majority of the PDs, but that doesn't end it this year.

[George II]

102. According to Bernie Rules (at least one iteration) the superdelegates should vote with the people...

...so, since the people have given her a majority of the pledged delegates the majority of the superdelegates should logically vote for Clinton.

[morningfog]

103. Sure, the supers should and will go with the PD winner,

unless they have a reason not to. In which case, they are free to go elsewhere.

[George II]

105. Glad you agree that they should vote for Clinton.

[morningfog]

108. Unless....

[oasis]

107. NO. If Donald Trump had suspended, Cruz was not going to be the

automatically accepted candidate of the GOP. It's should be up to the convention delegates to decide.

[morningfog]

114. Repubs don't have super delegates.

[oasis]

123. Did I mention super delegates? Do they appear in the OP?

[morningfog]

125. Let me help you. Cruz was mathematically eliminated.

Even if he stayed in and trump dropped out, Cruz could not have reached the number to secure the nomination.

On our side, Bernie has not been mathematically eleminated and will not be becuse we endow 15 % nominating power with super delegates. Mathematically, he could still win at the convention, whether Hillary is still on or not.

[oasis]

126. So Hillary releases her delegates to vote for someone who is more

their "cup of tea". What's stopping a delegate on the floor from putting Kerry, Biden, or Warrens name into the nomination process?

[Recursion]

112. No. If she releases her delegates, they are released

If enough of them back Sanders, then he will be the nominee. If they coalesce around somebody else, that person will be the nominee.

[morningfog]

115. What is the rule which allows "release" of pledged delegates

prior to the first vote?

[Recursion]

116. "Pledged" delegates aren't actually pledged by DNC rules, though the GOP does that

A delegate at the convention is allowed to vote for whomever he or she wants to for the nomination (in the GOP convention many of them are actually required by the bylaws to vote for the candidate they are pledged to). If a candidate releases his or her delegates, they are still allowed to vote for whomever they wish, but the personal loyalty issue is no longer a factor.

[JoePhilly]

113. If it helps you sleep ... sure.

[woolldog]

118. I'd prefer Biden.

And if not Biden then Warren. Maybe even Warren before Biden.

[AgingAmerican]

119. Neither of which would win

Would most likely be the lowest Democratic turnout in US history.

[woolldog]

121. I disagree. Those two are incredibly

popular among Dems and well respected. Biden would make a great contrast with Trump.

[Zynx]

129. Biden would win very very easily.

[NurseJackie]

127. Ha!

[Zynx]

130. Depends on how close that second is.

It would have to be a lot closer than Bernie Sanders is for me to automatically say that makes sense. Obviously, an 80-20 split would make it absurd to go with the second place finisher. I'm not sure a 56-44 split is any less absurd.

At that point I'd just favor a vote of the delegates at the convention and see who else wants to vie for the the delegates of the first place candidate.

[LWolf]

131. Yes, but I don't think

that's what the neo-liberal party establishment has in mind.

[Nye Bevan]

132. Nope. It would be Biden. Sorry. (nt)

[morningfog]

133. Then the Dems would lose and for a long time.

[Nye Bevan]

134. LOL. Biden would eat Trump for breakfast, spit him out,

then eat the masticated remains for lunch. It would not be pretty, or close.

[morningfog]

135. We'd lose for not following the 10+ million who have voted for Bernie.

Not based on whether Biden is a strong candidate of not.

[Nye Bevan]

136. 90% of them at least would vote for Biden.

Come November very few people out there in the real world will remember the name Sanders. And even fewer people will stay home sulking on Election Day.

[morningfog]

137. Polls out of your ass are not worth much.