USA 2024 presidential election

My exact same thought when I saw that tweet.

Usually the VP pick is not much of a deal but I really do feel for Harris this time its crucial. She needs to pick someone who adds to the ticket and who also is from a battleground state and thus gives the Democrats a good chance to win that battle ground state. Shapiro for instance is also only 51, Mark Kelly is 60 and Gretchen Whitmer in Michigan is 52 so any of them as a pick given their ages as well as Harris's age would also allow them to really contrast the age issue, lack of mental fitness and acuity for office and turn all that right back onto the Republicans.

They still have significant doners. They got a flush of money the last two months, there problem is the war chest Biden accumulated earlier in the year. Democratic donations had started to dry up after the debate and I would say Trump and the republician PACTs raised more over the last 3 weeks than the Democrats did.

With Biden out of the race and Trump facing a younger black female opponent there is still opportunity for Trump. In Chinese opportunity and danger are the same word. The problem for Trumpmis how dose he attack her with out being misogynistic or racist.

There is danger for Harris and the Democrats as well. She has not gone through a primary campaign which would have indicated any weaknesses she had. However tgat is an advantage as well. Obama is slow coming out to endorse her. It definitely gives the feeling that his camp wanted to run Michelle Obama as his proxy. However that bus is gone. He will probably endorse her in the next 48 hours.

Can Harris and the Democrats develop a head of steam over the next months as Harris coronation as the DP's takes place. However will some like Obama maybe perfer her to lose the election as if she wins she could probably serve 8 years and her VP would be the next nominee after her.

I wonder did Joe deliberately holdout the last 3-4 weeks to close the door in Michelle Obama. Forcing the part to unite behind Harris in there bid to get him to drop out. If he exited 2-3 weeks ago there might have been an opportunity for MB or another canditate to launch a bid.

Biden will have plenty of dirt on Trump. Harris has no children for the Trump camp to attack. So fir Trump and the RP it's all about trying to play the misogynistic racist card without appearing to play it.

By waiting until after the initial buzz has died down, Obama then announcing his endorsement gives her a renewed boost in the media cycle, another boost for fundraising etc.

Illinois has been Democrat for a long time - even Hillary won there with a comfortable 55%.

If the Democrat campaign ever feels the need to shore it up, with a VP pick, or having Obama campaign there, or other resources, then they are in a whole heap of trouble elsewhere.

Well that's up for debate. The text reads

No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice

Now if you are running for VP, you are not running as President but you would be running for a position that you could potentially take over as president.

Also worthy of mention is the very long succession line of the President, the VP is obviously first in line but then you have the speaker of the house and the senates president pro tempore (longest serving senator from the majority party) followed by the various secretaries.

So then if you apply the same logic Obama can't run for senate or as speaker of the house, but can run as a congressman and be appointed as an un-elected secretary

Regardless of what you think on the above, what about Michelle Obama?

I don't think that anyone is making the argument that political betting markets are "unbeatable oracles of certainty".

I do think that they offer an insight into what the consensus is at any given time and how that shifts given different events.

I particularly like Betfair Exchange because those prices reflect the market forces (they're not set by someone in the bookmakers office) and so nonsense novelty bets designed to ensnare unsavvy punters are not as big a feature.

The Constitutional position is debated, and would likely end up before the Supreme Court if a former two-term President ever tried to stand for election as VP.

Full paper presenting the argument to why it is possible is linked below - interesting theoretical legal point, but one that's highly unlikely to be ever actually tested.

https://digitalcommons.law.uga.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2011&context=fac_artchop

In summary the 22nd Amendment bars someone from being elected to the role of President having previously served two terms, but doesn't make any mention of someone being elevated to the role of President outside of an election.

The 12th Amendment states that "no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States".

The legal argument then comes down to whether the 22nd Amendment simply bars a former 2-term President from being elected another time to the office of President, or if it makes them ineligible to hold the office again completely.

Either way - like you said, the suggestion is utter nonsense and isn't going to happen now or likely ever.

Interestingly,its also forbidden to have a vice president from the same state as a President

That would rule out the California governor as a VP pick.

Beta O'Rourke would be my pick but I dont think he holds an office still ?

Hmmm. This seemed dubious but is actually somewhat true albeit different to the way you said it. She could pick a Californian VP candidate and they could win on that ticket. But they would have to win without California's electoral college votes.

https://www.history.com/news/can-the-president-and-vice-president-be-from-the-same-state

Interestingly,its also forbidden to have a vice president from the same state as a President

Not exactly, and even if it was, it's not a practical bar.

The actual law is that the electors (of the electoral college) can't vote for two people from the same state as themselves - meaning that if it was a Harris/[Californian] ticket, the Californian electors could still vote for Harris, but then couldn't vote for the VP candidate. They could abstain from the VP vote - if the Harris ticket margin of victory was big enough, it wouldn't matter, but theoretically, you could end up with Harris as president and Vance as VP.

However, it would never realistically happen. First of all, specifically in this election, they're not going to select another Californian for the ticket: California is a lock even without Harris as the nomination. But even if it did make electoral sense for a Californian to be selected, they would have them change their residency to a different state. This scenario has already happened - in 2000, George W Bush and Dick Cheney were both residents of Texas, but before the election, Cheney changed his residency to Wyoming.

Haven't seen this being reported elsewhere but probably not surprising if true:

The Democrats should call him a chicken at every available opportunity.

Presumably if he ducks Harris then there will be no VP debate either.