by Jeff Childers
In case you were off enjoying real life and somehow missed this widely-reported, portentous news, Fox News ran the story late yesterday afternoon headlined, “Trump, DeSantis meet privately for several hours in Miami.” The meeting electrified the media, prompting a banner crop of articles sprouting from nearly every platform, from the New York Times down to the local Miami ABC affiliate. They’re on tenterhooks, eagerly waiting to launch the controversies and lawfare.
Nobody knows anything for sure about what the two men discussed at yesterday’s meeting in Hollywood (Florida). The articles gush with deep background, historical references to campaign events, and anonymous quotes, but no news beyond the bare fact they met together!
Like the rest of the media, Fox quoted anonymous “Republicans with knowledge of the meeting” who reported only that DeSantis had agreed to help Trump with fundraising. It means nothing, since the anonymous sources could easily have all agreed on some narrative that truthfully reported part of what was discussed at the meeting.
DeSantis probably did agree to help Trump with fund raising. Coincidentally, Vice Presidents can help with fund-raising, and with campaigning, just as well as can allied Governors in the home state.
Perhaps signaling how fearful a Trump-DeSantis ticket makes the New York Times, the Grey Lady dumped her leftover champagne bucket of ice cold water all over the vice-presidential idea:
Mr. DeSantis is not seen as a contender to join a Republican ticket with Mr. Trump… Both Mr. Trump and Mr. DeSantis have made clear that such a pairing doesn’t interest either of them, and they also live in the same state, which would make it an unconstitutional pairing unless one of them were to move out of Florida, which is unlikely to happen, especially since Mr. DeSantis is currently the governor.
The NYT’s claim that the Constitution forbids presidents and vice-presidents living in the same state is, well, a significant stretch. Which is why you probably never heard of that ‘rule’ before. What you need to know is there is some murky language in the 12th Amendment, which defines how the Electoral College procedure works. Here is the sticky bit:
The electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot for two persons, of whom one at least shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves.
According to a 2016 article on History.com, written well before the current controversy (but ‘updated’ in January this year), that wordy constitutional provision has always previously been interpreted to mean that if the presidential and vice-presidential candidates are both from the same state, electors from that state may not vote for both candidates. Under that interpretation, a ticket could lose all the electoral votes for vice-president from the state of residence. That might be a big problem in a very tight race.
According to History.com, a tight-race showdown was narrowly avoided in the 2000 election:
When Texas Governor George W. Bush chose Dick Cheney as his running mate, Cheney had also been living and voting and paying taxes for five years in Texas. Shortly before the election, however, Cheney obtained a Wyoming driver’s license and put his Dallas home on the market. (He had a vacation home in Wyoming, the state he had formerly represented in Congress.)
Good thing he did: The Bush-Cheney ticket ended up winning with 271 electoral votes—just a slim five-vote margin—over Al Gore and Joe Lieberman, a total they certainly wouldn’t have hit without Texas’ 32 votes.
To avoid losing Florida’s vice-presidential electoral votes, Trump could just before the election change his driver’s license and temporarily relocate to one of his many other residences. It’s not unimaginable. The 12th Amendment requires the candidate to be an “inhabitant” of another state, which is probably a lower threshold than being a “citizen” or “resident.”
Bottom line, while appearing to casually dismiss the chances of a Trump-DeSantis ticket, the New York Times was actually preparing the battlefield. It’s hinting at a not-so-secret democrat scheme to launch a new lawfare missile against the Trump-DeSantis combination. They plan to argue the 12th Amendment’s obtuse language forbids a same-state ticket.
Which means, if Trump and DeSantis do hook up, we’ll soon be right back at the Supreme Court for another 9-0 decision in the — third? fourth? dang it, I lost count — another emergency Constitutional case over Trump’s candidacy.
Wheee! More legal records broken!
From a purely selfish standpoint, I do not want it to happen. I want DeSantis to stay in Florida. But I can see the wisdom of the pairing. It seems to me that both men stand to benefit from DeSantis joining Trump’s ticke
The advantages for Trump are clear: the matchup would end the Republican Party’s civil war, and maybe even convince some Never-Trumpers to get on board. You never know. And it would convincingly quash any complaints about Trump’s age, since DeSantis could immediately be an acceptable President if something were to happen to Trump. Unlike certain other very silly candidates I shall not single out (but whose name rhymes with Pamela Paris).
For his part, the Governor would also benefit, from turbo-charging his next four years of preparation for a 2028 run for President. It’s inarguable that an incumbent Vice-President enjoys a strong election advantage over challengers. If not, if he stays where he is, DeSantis will be wandering for two years in the political wilderness after terming out as Florida Governor in 2026.
The matchup would be exciting and would pour rocket fuel into the GOP’s thirsty fundraising tank.
Normally, we never see a strong VP pick because of personality issues. No strong politician wants the Presidential candidate, who they may dislike or disrespect, bossing them around. And the President usually doesn’t want a VP who might hog the political spotlight. But not only do the particular personalities involved reduce those risks for Trump and DeSantis, but this is also not a normal election, either.
Even the New York Times, in its final sentence, even after dismissing the whole idea out of hand as unconstitutional, ultimately seemed to hint at the same conclusion:
Still, allies of both men say it is politically beneficial for them to come together for the 2024 campaign and beyond.
It depends on what you mean by “come together.” Come together in campaigning? Or come together on the same ticket? Like I said, it seems pretty obvious. It’s even too obvious for the Times to deny. Conservative social media seems to like the idea.
We shall see. In the meantime, what do you think? Should Trump pick DeSantis as Veep, and if so, should DeSantis accept?
But both Robin Ware/Robert L. Peters/JRB Ware/Pedo Peter/idiot Biden and Kamala were both from Dumbfukistan.