Biden didn't win the debate, but he isn't dropping out (msnbc.com)
Biden didn't win the debate, but he isn't dropping out (msnbc.com)
I'm making an honest effort here to be as nonpartisan as I can bout this so I hope it is appreciated:
First, I believe that Trump made a HUMONGOUS strategic error last time around by making a big issue out of Biden's decline BEFORE the debates in 2016. That was an error for two reasons:
- It effectively put the Biden campaign on notice. That gave them an opportunity to prepare for it, and
- It lowered the bar. By talking it up BEFORE the debate, Trump did make some people wonder but then they tuned into the 2016 debate and the bar was so low that when Biden didn't look like a blithering idiot, he cleared it by a mile.
This time around two things changed:
- Trump (himself, not referring to supporters) didn't make much of an issue out of Biden's decline before the debate. That raised the bar, and
- Biden was a catastrophe and Trump did a reasonably good job of pointing it out. I thought Trump's "I don't know what he said and I don't think he knows either" was a very good line and pretty well delivered. It wasn't quite "There he goes again" (Reagan against Carter) or "You are no Jack Kennedy" (Bensten against Quayle) but it was pretty good.
There is some precedent so here is some history:
Franklin Delano Roosevelt had three Vice Presidents:
FDR's original running-mate and first VP was the Speaker of the House, John Nance Garner. Garner was a conservative Texas Democrat who had been in the HoR from about the turn of the century. Ironically (given what happened), during the 1932 election, Garner criticized Hoover's Depression Relief efforts as "socialist". He was always more conservative than FDR and this background rift turned into an open break after his and FDR's re-election in 1936. After that, Garner openly opposed Roosevelt's policies for centralizing too much power and other issues. Of trivia interest, Garner served two full terms as VP but it was less than eight years because the inauguration date changed. Garner served as VP from March 4, 1933 to January 20, 1941.
In 1940 Garner sought the Democratic Presidential nomination but lost out to FDR who then selected Henry Wallace as his second running-mate. Wallace was an outright socialist. He had been a Republican but split with the R's briefly to support FDR's uncle on the "Progressive/Bull Moose" ticket in the 1912 Presidential Election. FDR's "New Deal" caused a major realignment of the parties. It cemented the Democrats as the more socialist of the two major parties while the Republicans took up the other side more-or-less by default. Once that happened, people began to drift toward the party more aligned with their personal ideology. However, this process took years and in some cases decades. Garner whose personal beliefs pretty clearly aligned better with the Republicans than the Democrats by the mid 1940's lived into the 1960's and as far as I know he never actually switched. Wallace was quicker to pull the trigger. He had supported FDR even in his first campaign (1932) and by 1936 he had become a registered Democrat. FDR chose him to replace Garner in 1940.
Wallace served one term as Vice President, serving from January 20, 1941 to January 20, 1945. FDR's health had deteriorated substantially by the time of the 1944 election. I don't think that the general public was aware of it, but it was widely believed (correctly as it turned out) by those in DC that FDR would not survive a fourth term. Consequently, the Conservatives in the Democratic Party objected to Wallace and defeated FDR's efforts to get him re-nominated as VP at the 1944 Democratic Convention. Truman was basically a compromise candidate. As relatively unknown Democratic Senator from Missouri he was the type of nominee who wasn't really anybody's "favorite" but he won because he also wasn't anybody's "least favorite" so he worked out as a compromise.
Biden is 81 and will turn 82 shortly after the 2024 election (born November 20, 1942). FWIW, Trump isn't much younger at 78 (born June 14, 1946). The difference is twofold:
- For all of his faults, Trump doesn't display any obvious signs of elderly decline.
- If elected, Biden will be 82 when he is inaugurated. If elected, Trump will be 82 when he leaves office in 2029.
I'm curious to see how this plays out. Honestly I felt like RFK was the big winner in last night's debate simply by not being there. Trump looked and sounded like his usual self, Biden looked and sounded like he should be in a nursing home. RFK looked substantially better.
I think that as this sinks in with the electorate there is a not insignificant chance that Biden will be told that it is time to step aside. Whether or not he does is, of course, up to him . . . probably. At the end of the day, the Convention Delegates mostly aren't locked into voting for their guy so if Biden continues to look unable and/or if it hurts his poll numbers to the point where it appears inevitable that he will loses, I don't think it is outside the realm of possibility that the Delegates might just decide to pick someone else.
The other question (on both sides) is the VP selection. As I see it, this is the most important that a VP decision has ever been. At their ages, the chance Trump, Biden, or both will die of natural causes prior to January 1, 2029 is probably around 50/50. Beyond that, they are at ages where strokes and whatnot are not all that uncommon. If the 2024 winner has a debilitating stroke between November 5, 2024 and January 20, 2025 they might not even get sworn in.
There is also another possibility. The delegates to the Electoral College aren't actually "pledged" to their candidate. There have been some state law efforts to change this but the enforceability of those is suspect at best. It is pretty clearly a Federal issue. What if either Biden or Trump wins, then dies or suffers a debilitating stroke or other similar health crisis between the election and the meeting of the Electoral College?
Then there is another issue. The Electoral College doesn't actually "meet". Instead of having one central meeting, the delegates of each state meet in their State Capitol on the first Tuesday after the second Wednesday in December (December 17 this year). Then their votes are transmitted to DC to be opened and counted by Congress in January. But what if the "winning" candidate dies between December 17 and January?
If no candidate wins a majority of the Electoral College, the HoR elects the President. But there are two catches here:
- It is NOT the current (Republican by 219-213) HoR but rather the one elected at the 2024 election.
- It really doesn't matter which party controls the HoR because IF they elect the President, they do so by State with each State getting one vote.
One legal question I have is whether or not a deceased "winner" would trigger the HoR deciding. I *THINK* it would but that isn't entirely clear. The Constitutional language that triggers a HoR decision is "if no person shall have a majority . . .". The argument for HoR determination would be that "person" means a LIVE person. I'm sure that would be litigated.
FWIW, I don't actually know the current breakdown by state but the R's had a majority (26-23 with one tie) in the last congress and I can't imagine that they lost that majority while gaining seats but it is theoretically possible. Again, it doesn't matter because if the HoR decides it will be the one elected this fall, not the current one.
