334
Mitch McConnell’s daughter deletes her X account as questions swirl over health after his hospitalization
(www.independent.co.uk)
this post was submitted on 07 Jul 2026
334 points (99.4% liked)
politics
30314 readers
2628 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Not “grounds for”, it should be automatic. The system has lots of mechanisms to remove bad actors, but due to the inherent obstructionism in the system it’s impossible to actually trigger them.
Sick leave is fine, but the job has to get done regardless.
For automatic triggers you need SOME way to combat extreme unfairness (like something calamity induced for example), but any way i can see to fairly do that doesnt really work in a 2 party system. A multiparty system would be better protected against voting with the party vs voting according to your morals, or whatever you would call what is happening over there.
I guess in the current state of the dysfunctional US legislative + judicial system that unfairness would be a small price to pay.
I think the constituency should be able to decide. If there's a natural disaster or something and the person is either helping locally or somehow affected and the opposition attempts to rush through votes to get a special election where several displaced people may be unable to vote I don't want them to have that power. At the end of the day the people being represented should be able to decide what to do.
Maybe automatic makes more sense, I just don't love policies where the people affected have no say. I feel like they are easy to abuse. I know they could technically reelect the same person, but as is people struggle to get to the polls. I can't imagine rushing a special election during some kind of disaster. It's a lot of money and stress if people don't actually want the change.
In the US elections are entirely up to the state, regardless of any other factor: a state legislature can constitutionally address any unusual circumstances, like a natural disaster, according to its needs.
As a separate issue, in most states the governor simply selects replacements for vacant offices, like US Senator, and would also be able to do so in the event of any extreme circumstances.
But Mitch McConnell himself worked to change this in Kentucky in 2024, as soon as he realized he wasn't going to run again and his health might give out on him: he wanted to ensure Gov. Beshear, a Democrat, could not select his replacement.
The law in Kentucky that he helped to push through, requiring a special election for his replacement, IS automatically triggered and only bars a special election from three months prior to a regular election. If that deadline is passed, in this case August 3, then the good people of Kentucky only have one senator instead of two until January.
But to have a vacancy, someone has reveal the truth that there actually is a vacancy to be filled. So the suspicion now is that the Republicans are going to try to hide McConnell's condition until the first Tuesday in August -- the last day a Kentucky special election can be called -- so that Thomas Massie, a Republican who just got primaried out of his own Congressional seat, can't make a run for McConnell's now obviously vacant Senate seat.
This is an interesting debate -- X link / (xcancel link) -- around the minutiae of it; apparently no matter what happens now a legal challenge awaits in Kentucky. That's what happens when someone like McConnell pushes through a badly written, ill-thought piece of legislation that isn't clear enough: whoever doesn't like it has grounds to sue.
Which is to say that he didn't just fuck it up for his own vacant seat, he fucked it up for Kentucky as a whole, or at least until that law gets changed, by tying the governor's hands when ANY state or state-related federal office becomes vacant.
If this is too long I apologize; I started off answering your own comment and then it expanded to the current situation. I hope you find it useful.
I mean, letting the constituency decide does sound an awful lot like a special election 😉
They are basically equivalent, I just figured having an out if desired is better than forcing an out. So collecting signatures for a removal vs making a whole new campaign.