Gavin News Cum might be the best nickname Trump has ever made pic.twitter.com/zA5qXVBdc1
— Evil Elko (@EvilElko) July 26, 2024
No way they send out two Californians. 0% chance.DallasAg 94 said:
Confirmed.
Sounds like we have our VP candidate for the Democrats.
MarkTwain said:nomad2007 said:MarkTwain said:4 said:DallasAg 94 said:
Confirmed.
Sounds like we have our VP candidate for the Democrats.
Nope.
They are both from California and could not get the electoral votes from that state, which would automatically kill their ability to win the general election.
I don't know why people continually get this wrong. The Presidential candidate gets the electors. If they are both from the same state the VP candidate does not. The VP is just along for the ride anyway. The President is up for election and that's all that matters
The 12th amendment disagrees. Electors vote for both president and vice president, and one of those must be from a different state as the elector.
Sorry but you're incorrect. It simply states delegates can't vote for two people from the same state! Okay so what, Kamala gets the delegates for California and Newsome doesn't. The only requirement for the candidate for POTUS is the accumulate enough delegates to reach 270 that's it. There is constitutional requirement for the VP candidates however they are just along for the ride. If by chance the VP candidate falls short of 270 the Senate elects the Vice President from the two Vice Presidential candidates with the most electoral votes. Each Senator casts one vote for Vice President by a simple majority.
But NOTHING prevents the candidates of one party being from the same state.
Aggie97 said:MarkTwain said:nomad2007 said:MarkTwain said:4 said:DallasAg 94 said:
Confirmed.
Sounds like we have our VP candidate for the Democrats.
Nope.
They are both from California and could not get the electoral votes from that state, which would automatically kill their ability to win the general election.
I don't know why people continually get this wrong. The Presidential candidate gets the electors. If they are both from the same state the VP candidate does not. The VP is just along for the ride anyway. The President is up for election and that's all that matters
The 12th amendment disagrees. Electors vote for both president and vice president, and one of those must be from a different state as the elector.
Sorry but you're incorrect. It simply states delegates can't vote for two people from the same state! Okay so what, Kamala gets the delegates for California and Newsome doesn't. The only requirement for the candidate for POTUS is the accumulate enough delegates to reach 270 that's it. There is constitutional requirement for the VP candidates however they are just along for the ride. If by chance the VP candidate falls short of 270 the Senate elects the Vice President from the two Vice Presidential candidates with the most electoral votes. Each Senator casts one vote for Vice President by a simple majority.
But NOTHING prevents the candidates of one party being from the same state.
So with this you could have a POTUS and VP from different parties if the Republicans take back the Senate
MarkTwain said:Aggie97 said:MarkTwain said:nomad2007 said:MarkTwain said:4 said:DallasAg 94 said:
Confirmed.
Sounds like we have our VP candidate for the Democrats.
Nope.
They are both from California and could not get the electoral votes from that state, which would automatically kill their ability to win the general election.
I don't know why people continually get this wrong. The Presidential candidate gets the electors. If they are both from the same state the VP candidate does not. The VP is just along for the ride anyway. The President is up for election and that's all that matters
The 12th amendment disagrees. Electors vote for both president and vice president, and one of those must be from a different state as the elector.
Sorry but you're incorrect. It simply states delegates can't vote for two people from the same state! Okay so what, Kamala gets the delegates for California and Newsome doesn't. The only requirement for the candidate for POTUS is the accumulate enough delegates to reach 270 that's it. There is constitutional requirement for the VP candidates however they are just along for the ride. If by chance the VP candidate falls short of 270 the Senate elects the Vice President from the two Vice Presidential candidates with the most electoral votes. Each Senator casts one vote for Vice President by a simple majority.
But NOTHING prevents the candidates of one party being from the same state.
So with this you could have a POTUS and VP from different parties if the Republicans take back the Senate
Well the new Senators are not seated until January 3rd 2025 and that's past the Safe Harbor deadline of December 12 which if you remember came into play in the Bush v Gore SCOTUS decision. So under the "safe harbor" deadline set by Title 3 of the United States Code (3 U.S.C.), Sub Sec 5, the Senate would have to meet on that day to decide the VP election.
MarkTwain said:nomad2007 said:MarkTwain said:4 said:DallasAg 94 said:
Confirmed.
Sounds like we have our VP candidate for the Democrats.
Nope.
They are both from California and could not get the electoral votes from that state, which would automatically kill their ability to win the general election.
I don't know why people continually get this wrong. The Presidential candidate gets the electors. If they are both from the same state the VP candidate does not. The VP is just along for the ride anyway. The President is up for election and that's all that matters
The 12th amendment disagrees. Electors vote for both president and vice president, and one of those must be from a different state as the elector.
Sorry but you're incorrect. It simply states delegates can't vote for two people from the same state! Okay so what, Kamala gets the delegates for California and Newsome doesn't. The only requirement for the candidate for POTUS is the accumulate enough delegates to reach 270 that's it. There is constitutional requirement for the VP candidates however they are just along for the ride. If by chance the VP candidate falls short of 270 the Senate elects the Vice President from the two Vice Presidential candidates with the most electoral votes. Each Senator casts one vote for Vice President by a simple majority.
But NOTHING prevents the candidates of one party being from the same state.
Aggie97 said:MarkTwain said:Aggie97 said:MarkTwain said:nomad2007 said:MarkTwain said:4 said:DallasAg 94 said:
Confirmed.
Sounds like we have our VP candidate for the Democrats.
Nope.
They are both from California and could not get the electoral votes from that state, which would automatically kill their ability to win the general election.
I don't know why people continually get this wrong. The Presidential candidate gets the electors. If they are both from the same state the VP candidate does not. The VP is just along for the ride anyway. The President is up for election and that's all that matters
The 12th amendment disagrees. Electors vote for both president and vice president, and one of those must be from a different state as the elector.
Sorry but you're incorrect. It simply states delegates can't vote for two people from the same state! Okay so what, Kamala gets the delegates for California and Newsome doesn't. The only requirement for the candidate for POTUS is the accumulate enough delegates to reach 270 that's it. There is constitutional requirement for the VP candidates however they are just along for the ride. If by chance the VP candidate falls short of 270 the Senate elects the Vice President from the two Vice Presidential candidates with the most electoral votes. Each Senator casts one vote for Vice President by a simple majority.
But NOTHING prevents the candidates of one party being from the same state.
So with this you could have a POTUS and VP from different parties if the Republicans take back the Senate
Well the new Senators are not seated until January 3rd 2025 and that's past the Safe Harbor deadline of December 12 which if you remember came into play in the Bush v Gore SCOTUS decision. So under the "safe harbor" deadline set by Title 3 of the United States Code (3 U.S.C.), Sub Sec 5, the Senate would have to meet on that day to decide the VP election.
But if no VP candidate reaches 270 then it is the new Senate's responsibility to elect the VP.
nomad2007 said:MarkTwain said:nomad2007 said:MarkTwain said:4 said:DallasAg 94 said:
Confirmed.
Sounds like we have our VP candidate for the Democrats.
Nope.
They are both from California and could not get the electoral votes from that state, which would automatically kill their ability to win the general election.
I don't know why people continually get this wrong. The Presidential candidate gets the electors. If they are both from the same state the VP candidate does not. The VP is just along for the ride anyway. The President is up for election and that's all that matters
The 12th amendment disagrees. Electors vote for both president and vice president, and one of those must be from a different state as the elector.
Sorry but you're incorrect. It simply states delegates can't vote for two people from the same state! Okay so what, Kamala gets the delegates for California and Newsome doesn't. The only requirement for the candidate for POTUS is the accumulate enough delegates to reach 270 that's it. There is constitutional requirement for the VP candidates however they are just along for the ride. If by chance the VP candidate falls short of 270 the Senate elects the Vice President from the two Vice Presidential candidates with the most electoral votes. Each Senator casts one vote for Vice President by a simple majority.
But NOTHING prevents the candidates of one party being from the same state.
I didn't say it prevented it. It vastly complicates it. Just as you described, there is a very complicated and risky process to get around the requirements of the 12th amendment.
Theres a reason they'll do everything they can to avoid both candidates being from the same state.
I guarantee nobody vetting her VP candidates are saying "so what?" To the 12th amendment requirements. It's too big of a hurdle for absolutely no added benefit.
If she picks Newsome, which she won't for either her own reasons or his, one of them would change their residency. Just like Cheney did for 2000.
December 12th is the day the electors have to meet by to vote. They are not officially counted until the new Congress meets to open the ballots. Why do you think the "insurrection" happened on January 6th. Trump did not want Pence as leading the joint session of Congress to count the electoral votes.MarkTwain said:Aggie97 said:MarkTwain said:Aggie97 said:MarkTwain said:nomad2007 said:MarkTwain said:4 said:DallasAg 94 said:
Confirmed.
Sounds like we have our VP candidate for the Democrats.
Nope.
They are both from California and could not get the electoral votes from that state, which would automatically kill their ability to win the general election.
I don't know why people continually get this wrong. The Presidential candidate gets the electors. If they are both from the same state the VP candidate does not. The VP is just along for the ride anyway. The President is up for election and that's all that matters
The 12th amendment disagrees. Electors vote for both president and vice president, and one of those must be from a different state as the elector.
Sorry but you're incorrect. It simply states delegates can't vote for two people from the same state! Okay so what, Kamala gets the delegates for California and Newsome doesn't. The only requirement for the candidate for POTUS is the accumulate enough delegates to reach 270 that's it. There is constitutional requirement for the VP candidates however they are just along for the ride. If by chance the VP candidate falls short of 270 the Senate elects the Vice President from the two Vice Presidential candidates with the most electoral votes. Each Senator casts one vote for Vice President by a simple majority.
But NOTHING prevents the candidates of one party being from the same state.
So with this you could have a POTUS and VP from different parties if the Republicans take back the Senate
Well the new Senators are not seated until January 3rd 2025 and that's past the Safe Harbor deadline of December 12 which if you remember came into play in the Bush v Gore SCOTUS decision. So under the "safe harbor" deadline set by Title 3 of the United States Code (3 U.S.C.), Sub Sec 5, the Senate would have to meet on that day to decide the VP election.
But if no VP candidate reaches 270 then it is the new Senate's responsibility to elect the VP.
Based on what do you base your "new" senator statement because I made my argument based on the laws I cited. The Safe Harbor deadline is there for a reason. It's not arbitrary or fluid. The Senate seated in place at that time prevails
