As I understand it, replacing a VP nominee is doable, but tricky. Legally, Vance would have to resign voluntarily (or "voluntarily"); I don't think Trump or the party can unilaterally decide to fire him at this stage according to party rules. Even if he does resign, there's probably a bunch of logistical hurdles and potential setbacks associated with changing the nominee this late in the game. Point being, Vance is undoubtedly an albatross, but replacing him would create problems of its own. Trump has probably already talked about replacing him, and the party is likely doing the political math on whether it would be worth doing, and how to go about doing it.
At the end of the day, Vance was a big own-goal for Trump, even if he does get replaced. The GOP doesn't have a particularly deep bench at the moment, but I have to imagine there were better options.
Doesn't the party make the rules? The DNC was able to make a rule change at the Nevada caucuses on a voice vote and despite it being clear the vote didn't pass, the chair ruled that it did.
Ultimately I think VP's rarely ever matter. Maybe in a rare instance where a VP has an amazing reputation in their home state it energizes some voters who would have otherwise stayed home, but nobody is not voting because a pres has a bad VP.
The rules can be ignored, but the rules do exist. Legality only ever matters to the extent that anyone enforces it, but breaking rules doesn't make you look good, and donors may not be excited about supporting an organization that won't enforce its own rules. If they do want to replace Vance, they'll pressure him behind closed doors to resign, not make it a spectacle. I'm just pointing out that if Trump could openly fire him, he'd probably have done it already because Vance is making him look bad.
I agree that whether the VP matters is very questionable. Bottom line is that if they think Vance is enough of an election liability, they'll get rid of him, but it's entirely possible that it won't make much difference either way.
A smarter pick against Harris would have been Haley. Of course, Trump picked Vance before it was announced Harris would be replacing Biden, and I’m pretty damn sure the Dems planned this out so that would be the case.
I think assuming the Dems planned any of this is extremely generous. It's working out okay for them, but I think the simpler explanation is that Biden stepped down because he wasn't physically able to do the job and he was going to get forced out if he hadn't gone willingly. If they were doing any actual planning, they would have forced a competitive primary. Harris wouldn't be on the ticket if they were that competent.
I think the claim is that the planning started after the disastrous debate. The inner circle of the DEM party knew he was going out, but was orchestrating a "he isn't going anywhere, he will remain our nominee"-narrative in the media before and during the RNC.
Ah, that makes more sense. Could easily see them reacting to that debate and coming up with a strategy to turn it to their advantage in the near-term. That sort of relatively reactive and opportunistic planning should be within the Democrats' capabilities, even if their long-term strategic thinking is questionable.
As I understand it, replacing a VP nominee is doable, but tricky. Legally, Vance would have to resign voluntarily (or "voluntarily"); I don't think Trump or the party can unilaterally decide to fire him at this stage according to party rules. Even if he does resign, there's probably a bunch of logistical hurdles and potential setbacks associated with changing the nominee this late in the game. Point being, Vance is undoubtedly an albatross, but replacing him would create problems of its own. Trump has probably already talked about replacing him, and the party is likely doing the political math on whether it would be worth doing, and how to go about doing it.
At the end of the day, Vance was a big own-goal for Trump, even if he does get replaced. The GOP doesn't have a particularly deep bench at the moment, but I have to imagine there were better options.
Doesn't the party make the rules? The DNC was able to make a rule change at the Nevada caucuses on a voice vote and despite it being clear the vote didn't pass, the chair ruled that it did.
Ultimately I think VP's rarely ever matter. Maybe in a rare instance where a VP has an amazing reputation in their home state it energizes some voters who would have otherwise stayed home, but nobody is not voting because a pres has a bad VP.
This is true, and if Harris wins neither VP pick will matter much at all. But if Trump wins there's a decent chance his VP pick ends up as President.
The rules can be ignored, but the rules do exist. Legality only ever matters to the extent that anyone enforces it, but breaking rules doesn't make you look good, and donors may not be excited about supporting an organization that won't enforce its own rules. If they do want to replace Vance, they'll pressure him behind closed doors to resign, not make it a spectacle. I'm just pointing out that if Trump could openly fire him, he'd probably have done it already because Vance is making him look bad.
I agree that whether the VP matters is very questionable. Bottom line is that if they think Vance is enough of an election liability, they'll get rid of him, but it's entirely possible that it won't make much difference either way.
A smarter pick against Harris would have been Haley. Of course, Trump picked Vance before it was announced Harris would be replacing Biden, and I’m pretty damn sure the Dems planned this out so that would be the case.
I think assuming the Dems planned any of this is extremely generous. It's working out okay for them, but I think the simpler explanation is that Biden stepped down because he wasn't physically able to do the job and he was going to get forced out if he hadn't gone willingly. If they were doing any actual planning, they would have forced a competitive primary. Harris wouldn't be on the ticket if they were that competent.
I think the claim is that the planning started after the disastrous debate. The inner circle of the DEM party knew he was going out, but was orchestrating a "he isn't going anywhere, he will remain our nominee"-narrative in the media before and during the RNC.
Ah, that makes more sense. Could easily see them reacting to that debate and coming up with a strategy to turn it to their advantage in the near-term. That sort of relatively reactive and opportunistic planning should be within the Democrats' capabilities, even if their long-term strategic thinking is questionable.