The Dump the Chump poll

From Vegas Insider last night:

Who could step in for Biden? If you believe the oddsmakers, Gavin Newsome is the top choice.

The Governor of California was listed as high as a 50/1 choice prior to the debate.

After Biden's downfall, Newsome is sitting anywhere between 8/1 and 12/1 odds, the latter being the consensus. As of Friday morning, less than 12 hours after the debate, Newsome has been moved to 5/1.

Along with Newsome, the betting markets suggest three other possible candidates to replace Biden. United States Vice President Kamala Harris is listed as 14/1 odds and so is Michelle Obama. Another big move from last night's debate was Gretchen Whitmer, the Democratic Governor of Michigan. Prior to the event, Whitmer was 100/1 and she's now sitting at 28/1 odds. Knowing Michigan is one of six "swing states" in the upcoming election, the narrative makes sense.

Enter ye 25th Ammendment exit strateg-er-y. But, what to do about the Kumala albotros?!? No sane person wants her even if it's just until November. But that loophole is there apparently. No way in hell she would be on the actual ballot. So then who, but first the 25th? Seems like Muh Russian, Russian, Russian Roulet with all chambers loaded.

According to a draft from The Heritage Oversight Project obtained by the Daily Mail:

Three of the expected six most contested states have some potential for pre-election litigation aimed at exasperating, with legitimate concerns for election integrity, the withdrawal process for a presidential candidate.

GA, NV, and WI, have specific procedures for withdrawal of a presidential nominee with differing degrees of applicability and timelines.’ WI does not allow withdrawal for any reason besides death.”

Important caveats include the timeline and triggering events. For example, some states allow withdrawal before the 74th day before an election,’ and failure to adhere to these timelines can result in the candidate’s name remaining on the ballot! (which provides its own corollary of post-election litigation). Likewise, the rationale for withdrawal (death, medical, or other) can be outcome determinative. Some states, like South Carolina, do not allow withdrawal for political reasons.’

There is also the possibility that states will be complicit in an improper withdrawal or substitution. The general scenario plays out after an election where the candidate dies, and the electors are left to choose who they are voting for. This circumstance is only applicable at the close of the election year there is greater uncertainty if the withdrawal happens before the election.

Should the Democrats choose to withdraw in June or July, after many states’ withdrawal timelines expire, what happens to those expired ballots? Or if done earlier, in April or May, how would that effect the withdrawal process? The answer is it depends.

Much will come down to when Biden withdraws, what procedures he does or does not follow, and the operating state law timelines and triggering events. However, at least 31 states defer to state or national party rules and committees for nominating in the event of withdrawal. These states circumvent the substitution process highlighted above. There may be some avenues for challenges to these laws on improper delegation grounds, however, these may be marginally beneficial.

There is also the issue of applicability. In some of these states there are no statutes that deal with presidential candidate withdrawal or vacancy in nominations, or the laws only operate at the primary election. Even more, there is little caselaw determining when these statutes apply.

Some of the extant cases do address applying these withdrawal statutes to different fact patterns than those contemplated by the statutory text, such as withdrawal of independent presidential candidates or congressional candidates. Yet, this confusion may be its own source of litigation. Arguing for strict application of a statue, like Wisconsin’s which prohibits withdrawal except in the case of death, would likely bear some fruit.

This memorandum does not address the procedures for presidential elector elections.

Additionally, it is outside the scope of this current research to assess different rules for political parties, national and state. Standing and other jurisdictional considerations, such as cause of action (implied or otherwise), are also outside the scope of this project. Further research can casily shore up these deficiencies.

CONCLUSION

Policymakers and the public should be prepared for all externalities that arise from President Biden not running for President in 2024. The process for substitution and withdrawal presents many election integrity issues. Adherence to the law in some states may result in that process being unsuccessful for the purposes of another candidate being on the ballot. Originally Posted by texassapper

Anyone want to revisit their vote? lol Originally Posted by texassapper

Why revisit, voters will do that come november.

The Dems will do whatever they want since laws don’t apply to them.

We’re on our way to a shooting match now. Originally Posted by texassapper

Well said for the party that packed the SC to do their bidding. But I have to admit, the court has made some rulings that surprised me.

As for shooting matches, Clarence Thomas is with you on that.

Enter ye 25th Ammendment exit strateg-er-y. But, what to do about the Kumala albotros?!? No sane person wants her even if it's just until November. But that loophole is there apparently. No way in hell she would be on the actual ballot. So then who, but first the 25th? Seems like Muh Russian, Russian, Russian Roulet with all chambers loaded. Originally Posted by Why_Yes_I_Do

Ya know, it just occurred to me that there is a massive DEI dilemma with that Albatros. How can they possible 25th the BI-DONE, then hop, skip and jump over all those DEI check boxes that Kumala ticked off. First female VP, black-ish, Indian/Asian, possible former upgraded female account on ekky (maybe?). And do it all in 50 days or less?

Oh well... not my problem.

Well said for the party that packed the SC to do their bidding. Originally Posted by Precious_b

Oh, you mean using the Constitutional means to overturn judicial legislative lawmaking and invention of rights that are not Constitutionally recognized?

The fruits of ACTUAL representative democracy? that packing? Is that what you are referring to?

\