Categories
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » With Trump under pressure there’s just a possibility that Nanc
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » With Trump under pressure there’s just a possibility that Nancy Pelosi could become President in 2019
This is a remote possibility and the stuff of West Wing but there’s just a chance that the Democrat who’s likely to be elected Speaker of the House next month, Nancy Pelosi, could become president in 2019.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
The circumstances required for Pence to go and not be replaced are a lot more than 60 to 1....
1. Some untoward event takes out both Trump and Pence in one fell swoop. There’s always the risk of that happening but obviously it’s very low.
2. Pence resigns/dies/is removed from the VP office and Trump also resigns/dies/is removed before the Senate (?) confirms a successor to Pence. With the GOP in charge of the Senate chances are they would bring it to a vote and get the confirmation through incredibly speedily if there was any risk of the presidency becoming vacant during this time.
I just can’t see it happening. By all means a small flutter, but not one to go big on methinks. The political realities are just too insurmountable for there to be a real chance of number 2 occurring.
Can we really see the Republican Party letting both the Presidency and the VP become vacant at the same time so that their least favourite House Democrat takes over? 200/1 seems more than a tad skinny.
:-)
Well I've bet big style on him surviving a full 1st term.
Emotional hedge. If he does, at least I dull the pain with a look at my b/f balance.
"A woman simply because she's a woman? How demeaning."
I'd be a Sun reader, but they got rid of page three.
Actually I would prefer him to be massacred at the polls than removed some other way. Just imagine the reaction of his base if he is 'martyred' at the hands of the 'liberal elite'. We'd never hear the end of it.
American Gammon: The Night They Drove Old Trumpy Down.
When Agnew resigned the vote of confirmation for Ford in the Senate was 387-35. I would expect something similar for any other nominee. Indeed, Carl Albert famously hurried through the process because the appalling implications of being an unelected president from the opposition party in the aftermath of both a Republican landslide and Watergate terrified him.
Of course, if Trump tried to appoint Ivanka or Sarah Palin that would be a bit different, but surely even he wouldn't be that crazy.
In any case once she becomes Speaker in January Trump will be unable to get any legislation through without agreeing it with her first
The vote in the senate was 92-3, if anyone is interested.
Speaking of which, Robert De Niro and Christopher Walken. Mike and Nick in The Deer Hunter. Very nice.
But more to the point it is those characters, in that film, who come to mind (to my mind at least) when talk is of the rust belt. And it was the rust belt wot done it, of course, for Donald Trump.
So would Mike and Nick have voted for Trump, if a presidential election had been a part of the film and if Trump had been a candidate?
I'd love to say "No!" but in truth I can't.
https://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/article220097825.html
It is an astonishing and disturbing story.
Its very thin and exaggerated trading at the moment but it is starting to feel like a recession is coming.
You picked up on my comment that 50% of Brexit dept civil servants are stockpiling food
I just want to be clear that’s not “news” or “fact”
My sister was told it by a friend who works in the department and repeated it to me
Even ignoring the potential for exaggeration in either of those transmissions (I translated “about half” as 50% but I trust you will forgive me for that) it is at best an internal department rumour as I very much doubt they have statistical support for the figure
If Democrats refused to support a Republican that would be unbelievably undemocratic
The only way this could potentially happen is dual-morbidity. Otherwise the Senate won't pull the trigger even if there is a smoking gun (they might have if it meant eg President Ryan but never for President Pelosi).
The GOP would be reaping what they sowed.
Plus the Americans would want a VPOTUS who wouldn’t pardon the Trump crime family.
You can't pick and choose the rules you do like and don't like. Either it's majority rule or it isn't.
No? Oh well.
The only thing that quickly responds to changing crude oil prices is petrol and diesel. From memory, it takes 2-3 weeks for this to feed through to the pump.
Petrol prices have certainly fallen significantly during the last two months.
Petrol is an obvious and direct correlation but of no concern to me, unfortunately.
And I see that the season of goodwill isn't particularly noticeable in the Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave.
The president and VP were chosen by a majority of the electoral college. States chose to elect a majority of senators.
Both of these are state level electorates - as is right in a federal system - not national electorates.
(Don’t forget that the rules predated organised parties hence some of the rough edges today)
Selection/ratification of the Vice President would be conducted under the Twenty-fifth amendment, which was passed in 1967.
Why was section II of the Twenty-fifth amendment needed?
Because the Constitution didn't specify any procedures/mechanisms in the event of a vacancy for Vice President.
Everything else is detail
An era that seems to have ended abruptly two years ago.
And remember exactly the same rules apply to removing the Veep as apply to removing the POTUS. It's very far from easy.
2) You are introducing an entirely bogus concept of which bit of the choices need to be respected at which stage. Once the electoral college is irrelevant, those parts of the institution which are relevant can proceed as they think fit. Given how much the Republicans have been seeking to rig the system in their own favour, they can't complain about the rules being operated on a self-contained basis.