Bait and Switch possible?

[PlushieWithTeeth]

Question: What are the rules for switching out a candidate for the office of the United States President? As in, is it possible to switch out another candidate when it's apparent the current one is losing badly? What are the deadlines for doing something like this? Any help on this would be very much appreciated :)

[Calamari]

Home depot is good for the tar.
Any poultry processing plant for the feathers.

[El Gato]

The Dems should have forgone the entire campain and ran "Unnamed Democrat", who was beating Bush by a wide margin before the primaries.

Substitute "Unknown" for "Unnamed" and I believe that's what they thought they were doing. In fact it pretty much was what they were doing. Other than Veterans and those who follow military related stuff, who had heard of John F'n Kerry outside of Massachusetts? Not many. He was (and is) completely in Ted "The Swimmer" Kennedy's shadow.

[Cboldt]

But some states do require their electors to vote for the candidate that they were selected to vote for.

If the candidate named on the ballot is unavailable, the party will tell the electors who to vote for, and they will. There have been a few electors that flouted the law, BTW, but the deviation did not determine the election, and the electors were not punished.

Still, if Bush carries 40+ states, it won't matter what sort of nonsense the Dems try.

Yes. True. In order for a switch to work, the party pulling the switch still has to obtain a majority of the electoral votes.

[Scott from the Left Coast]

It won't happen, even though Kerry is toast already. Hillary's the only one they'd want on the RAT side -- but Bush would destroy her maybe even worse than Kerry if they switched him for her this late in the campaign. She'd never run against Bush now, with his rising numbers, she knows he'd sweep the nation with her on the RAT ticket -- having gotten there without getting even one vote in the primaries.

Kerry's goin' down hard but the RATS will just ride him out and start the Hillary '08 campaign on Nov. 3.

[Political Junkie Too]

As I recall, that claim was tossed out. The courts ruled that a vote was for a person, and that you can't rule on voter intent based on how a voter voted on a particular race. They were ruling against a form of institutionalized block vote (where you basically check one box to vote for every Democrat or Republican).

The courts were saying that, just because you voted for 10 Democrats, you can't infer a vote for an 11th Democrat. The voter has to intentionally vote for that Democrat.

However, that was then (2000: Carnahan, 2002:Torricelli/Mink), this is now.

-PJ

[El Gato]

That being said, a replacement candidate would never pull off a win. Too many people would be confused, angry about it, or just plain apathetic

That would depend on the reasons (real or merely "given") for the replacement. An unfortunate illness, or worse, could gain sympathy votes, as it did in Minnesota and Missouri in recent years. Both times in favor of the 'Rats.

[Paleo Conservative]

What are the consequences of missing the deadline?

The DemocRATS already have named their candidate. My guess is that they would not be able to change the name on the ballot if state officials refuse to change it.

[null and void]

The world will have gone completely mad before that is a legitimate question. End of story.

What happens if our islamist friends take out one or more major party candidates before the election?

That isn't particularly out of the realm of possibility, let alone requiring the entire world to go mad...

[El Gato]

Both parties depend on a reasonable vote.

ROTFLMAO! The Democrats count on just the opposite. What reasonable person would vote for a Traitor who consorted with the enemy while the fighting was still ongoing? Apparently at least 40% of the electorate is completely un"reasonable".

[Born to Conserve]

The states decide who is allowed on the ballot, and when, and they decide how the election results are converted to electoral college representatives, and I believe the states decide what the electoral college reps are recommended to do, but the reps may be allowed to do what ever the heck they want. It's a complicated issue, but I don't think there is any way the dems could pull this out of the fire if Kerry goes down.

[null and void]

Where will we get the TAR and FEATHERS? Just wondering

Home Depot for the tar.

Bed, Bath and Beyond for the feathers. They come in convenient sized sacks...

[NYC Republican]

I'm concerned that if SKUMBAG SKERRY drops further in the polls, his prostate cancer may come out of remission, conveniently, and they may try to circumvent laws to get someone else on the ballot.

[Hop A Long Cassidy]

>>>"The Dems should have forgone the entire campain and ran "Unnamed Democrat", who was beating Bush by a wide margin before the primaries."

*** WINNER! ***

You're right. Kerry did nothing but pull them Demorats down.

Too bad.

Hoppy

[El Gato]

There would be a deadline to have your candidate's name printed on the ballot and requirements to meet beforehand. Write-ins would be possible anytime.

As others have pointed out, Presidential elections are different. It's really the electors of the party of the cannidate that you are voting for, not the cannidate themselves. So, if Kerry dropped out, whomever the DNC annointed would be the cannidate of the party, and would presumably be the one that any "Kerry" electors would vote for.

[txhurl]

Welcome aboard. It is mad.

[WideGlide]

ITs called the Torrecelli gambit.

[Cboldt]

I was curious as to the conditions and legalities of such an occurrence.

Perfectly legal. Voters are actually voting for already know party-loyal electors. The candidates' names are on the ballot with different deadlines, only as a matter of convenience for the voter, and advantage for the party.

As a practical matter, the election has to be close enough to win with some risk of voter confusion (but then, widow Carnahan won, albeit same last name), but lots of DEMs will pull the DEM lever, no matter whose name is on there. Check some ballots, you will see that party affiliation is marked prominently.

[El Gato]

Home depot sells tar

But we have so much better "stuff" these days. Super Glue for example. Constuction adhesives of all sorts. Much better than tar. And instead of feathers I would propose rock wool or loose fiberglass of the sort used for "blown in" insulation.

[RightWhale]

Maybe so. If Kerry is in such big trouble they wouldn't win enough electors to elect Hillary or anybody else anyway. This might even split the Democratic party permanently.

[Cboldt]

The DemocRATS already have named their candidate. My guess is that they would not be able to change the name on the ballot if state officials refuse to change it.

Yep. And that is the only consequence. The name on the ballot. But, the party is still on the ballot, and a vote for the party still counts toward the (already chosen) elector. Get enough votes, the party picks the candidate. Don't get enough votes, it's a moot point.