American Election 2020: Definitely a Thing That is Happening

17273757778101

Posts

  • ToxTox I kill threads Punch DimensionRegistered User regular
    Tox wrote: »
    Why? Why is just having another primary bad? This makes no sense.

    Who said not to have a primary? Or that it was bad to?

    The assumption people are making is that the VP who succeeds an old/deceased Biden will become the standard bearer for the party and will need to run for re-election for two more terms.

    It’s a bad assumption to make.

    How often does a VP not become a standard-bearer for the party after they've served in office?

    Wishlists! General | Gaming | Comics | Twitter! | Dilige, et quod vis fac
    Phoenix-DFencingsax
  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    I would like to see the VP pick elevate someone who otherwise does not have a path to national prominence. Either for geographic or temporal reasons. (Someone who was termed out of Governor in 2022 is a non-entity in 2028, let alone someone termed out in 2018, or someone who is probably going to be dead by then) Because, thanks to 2010, the Democrats still do not have a deep bench of Statewide officeholders to rise to prominence, and depending on which VP is picked can help develop that farm league.

    Yes, they also need to be able to do the job. That doesn't really rule out anyone floated so far aside from maybe Bass, I really don't know enough about her. It's part of why I would prefer someone like Abrams. She would have a bright future if it weren't for the fact that she lives in Georgia.

    Lord PalingtonCelestialBadgerShadow DemonMan in the Mists
  • joshofalltradesjoshofalltrades Class Traitor Smoke-filled roomRegistered User regular
    Tox wrote: »
    Tox wrote: »
    Why? Why is just having another primary bad? This makes no sense.

    Who said not to have a primary? Or that it was bad to?

    The assumption people are making is that the VP who succeeds an old/deceased Biden will become the standard bearer for the party and will need to run for re-election for two more terms.

    It’s a bad assumption to make.

    How often does a VP not become a standard-bearer for the party after they've served in office?

    Just ask Dick Cheney, Dan Quayle, Nelson Rockefeller, Spiro Agnew, Hubert Humphrey, Alben Barkley, Henry Wallace.........

  • ZibblsnrtZibblsnrt Registered User regular
    zepherin wrote: »
    Yeah, I'm starting to come around on this.

    Let Harris (and Biden) be the faces on camera, and let Warren be the magnificent policy wonk with a plan for everything who stays out of the spotlight because too many people in this country can't stand being confronted with someone who's actually smart because it reminds them how stupid and ignorant they are.

    ... I may have some lingering issues from the primary. Or the Obama administration, take your pick.

    (Yes you DO want someone exceptional for these jobs, someone (far) better than average, because these are HARD (and important!) JOBS. I'm sure as hell not qualified, and that's if I wanted the responsibility, which I absolutely fucking do not. We've seen what happens when you fill those positions with people who are exactly as dumb and incompetent as their base, just luckier and better connected, and it's been a disaster from top to bottom. These are jobs for which you want the best people you can find, in your country if not the entire planet.)

    I've had it with cronies and donors, fuckups and failsons. Bring on the "elites". We're gonna need them to get us out of this mess.
    I will take someone who isn’t a monster trying to inflict maximum pain.

    Given the possible attack-dog role for VPs I suppose there's something to be said for someone trying to inflict maximum pain on the monsters at this point.

    Don't mind me, just feeling a little Old Testament after the last several years...

    Commander ZoomGiantGeek2020zepherinSmrtnikForar
  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    Tox wrote: »
    Tox wrote: »
    Why? Why is just having another primary bad? This makes no sense.

    Who said not to have a primary? Or that it was bad to?

    The assumption people are making is that the VP who succeeds an old/deceased Biden will become the standard bearer for the party and will need to run for re-election for two more terms.

    It’s a bad assumption to make.

    How often does a VP not become a standard-bearer for the party after they've served in office?

    Just ask Dick Cheney, Dan Quayle, Nelson Rockefeller, Spiro Agnew, Hubert Humphrey, Alben Barkley, Henry Wallace.........

    What? Humphrey became the Nominee after LBJ declined to run for a second term. If anything he embodies the point you are trying to refute.

    Captain CarrotElldrenElvenshae
  • joshofalltradesjoshofalltrades Class Traitor Smoke-filled roomRegistered User regular
    edited August 1
    Sorry, I got mixed up on that one. The rest of them are absolutely examples of VPs that went on to move aside for someone else.

    Edit: The fact that there are VPs like Gore who go on to become the nominee does not mean that is always the way it goes. That’s my point. Getting one example wrong doesn’t magic that away.

    joshofalltrades on
    GiantGeek2020Tofystedeth
  • DevoutlyApatheticDevoutlyApathetic Registered User regular
    Cheney feels like a bad example, he was never really in the politics side of things. Quayle is a strong counterpoint but his VP experience a bit unique as the media just devoured the guy.

    Doctor DetroitjdarksunMunkus BeaverGiantGeek2020zepherinElvenshae
  • OremLKOremLK Registered User regular
    We literally just saw how having been Vice President makes you the automatic, heavily-favored frontrunner in the primary even if you're in your late 70s and your term as VP was a whole election cycle ago. I don't think it's a bad assumption to think that whoever Biden picks as VP has a very strong chance of being the next Democratic presidential candidate, assuming he wins. No, it's not guaranteed, but the odds are high. It's worth considering.

    Mild ConfusionCommander ZoomCelestialBadgerMunkus BeaverAistanSleepCaptain CarrotmonikerOrcaStabbity StyleLabelGennenalyse RuebenGiantGeek2020FencingsaxDee KaezepherinDoctorArchMan in the MistsKraintNobeardTrajan45MrVyngaardJaysonFoureMoanderElldrenLeeksstopgapElvenshaeArdol
  • ToxTox I kill threads Punch DimensionRegistered User regular
    14/48 VPs have gone on to become PotUS, I don't think it's a bad assumption that your VP nom should also be a good potential nom themselves

    Wishlists! General | Gaming | Comics | Twitter! | Dilige, et quod vis fac
    GoumindongmonikerMan in the MistsNobeardMrVyngaardElvenshae
  • zagdrobzagdrob Registered User regular
    Cheney feels like a bad example, he was never really in the politics side of things. Quayle is a strong counterpoint but his VP experience a bit unique as the media just devoured the guy.

    Also being a VP whose POTUS lost reelection rather than terming out is probably a factor with him.

    I really don't think this is a situation that comes up often enough to make blanket assessments.

    monikermcdermottElvenshaeEinzel
  • ToxTox I kill threads Punch DimensionRegistered User regular
    It is a bad assumption that whoever Biden picks will be a foregone conclusion to win the nom after him.

    It's not a bad assumption to assume the press won't try to act like the Dems have crowned an heir.

    Wishlists! General | Gaming | Comics | Twitter! | Dilige, et quod vis fac
    Doctor DetroitFencingsaxMrVyngaard
  • Mild ConfusionMild Confusion Smash All Things Registered User regular
    OremLK wrote: »
    We literally just saw how having been Vice President makes you the automatic, heavily-favored frontrunner in the primary even if you're in your late 70s and your term as VP was a whole election cycle ago. I don't think it's a bad assumption to think that whoever Biden picks as VP has a very strong chance of being the next Democratic presidential candidate, assuming he wins. No, it's not guaranteed, but the odds are high. It's worth considering.

    Exactly.

    I doubt Biden would’ve won the primary if wasn’t Obama’s VP. He went in with a tremendous advantage in the primary because of that.

    Obviously it’s not guaranteed because of the primary, but whomever is picked as VP will have a very large advantage in a future primary if Biden is a successful President. So they need to pick someone they are expecting to eventually run for President after serving as VP.

    steam_sig.png

    Battlenet ID: MildC#11186 - If I'm in the game, send me an invite at anytime and I'll play.
    OremLKCelestialBadgerMorganVmonikerOrcaStabbity StyleGiantGeek2020Gennenalyse RuebenSkeithMan in the MistsNobeardMrVyngaardElldren
  • OremLKOremLK Registered User regular
    I guess the main thing is, if the president is unsuccessful, yeah, their VP is probably a lot less likely to run or to be the nominee if they do run. But like... I don't want to plan on failure. Also, if the VP is too old, which is a thing that has happened. But that's something the Biden campaign can control for by not picking somebody like, say, Warren, much as I love her.

  • ToxTox I kill threads Punch DimensionRegistered User regular
    But let's go through those examples, because I think there's some insights here.

    Agnew is a bad example because had he not been tied up in the scandal he literally would have inherited the office.

    Henry Wallace did run, as a Progressive (that was a time of realignment of the parties).

    Rockefeller is maybe noteworthy because he was 66ish when he took office as VP, served one term (under Ford), did not run again after said single term, and died 2 years out of office. And you can argue that tying himself to Ford basically meant he ended up just close enough to the Nixon scandal to not be considered electable.

    Barkley was 76, so I think he's sort of a proto-Cheney in that regard, his party basically said he was too old.

    Quayle and Cheney are noteworthy examples, and both cases led to particularly chaotic primaries (which I don't think is an adjective you can give value to; it's not good or bad that those primaries were chaotic, it's just true).

    Wishlists! General | Gaming | Comics | Twitter! | Dilige, et quod vis fac
    Elvenshae
  • Doctor DetroitDoctor Detroit Registered User regular
    Things change so much in politics that it’s probably futile to try and apply rules to this. However, I do think that picking a VP to counter an age argument is a thing. Younger candidates tend to go for age and/or DC experience. Older candidates tend to go for (relative) youth.

    monikerFencingsax
  • ToxTox I kill threads Punch DimensionRegistered User regular
    Let's not forget, it's also a bad assumption that Biden won't seek reelection. He hasn't actually said he won't.

    Wishlists! General | Gaming | Comics | Twitter! | Dilige, et quod vis fac
    shryke
  • AbsalonAbsalon Registered User regular

    Political scientist.

    Older black people, i.e. the ones that care enough to vote, are far more forgiving towards tough-on-crime-ish politicians etc. because they remember how bad it got in the 70s and 80s.

    We are all as God made us and frequently much worse
    ShadowhopeStabbity StyleshrykeBandablejmcdonaldzagdrobToxNobeardTrajan45TicaldfjamNo-QuartereMoander
  • Phoenix-DPhoenix-D Registered User regular
    Absalon wrote: »

    Political scientist.

    Older black people, i.e. the ones that care enough to vote, are far more forgiving towards tough-on-crime-ish politicians etc. because they remember how bad it got in the 70s and 80s.

    She still has a huge preference amoung younger people there too. Which is weird but ok.

    Commander Zoom
  • ElkiElki get busy Moderator, ClubPA mod
    edited August 1
    The excitement around her VP polling is pretty weird. She’s one of two names people will recognize in that list, period. Gretchen Whitmer doesn’t exactly turn out national crowds. And she’s what, at mind blowing 25%? Nice, but is this different than running a poll that says “do you know who this person is?”

    Elki on
    smCQ5WE.jpg
    Shadow DemonJragghenRedTideHenroidZonugalMan in the MistsToxMrMisterDavid Walgas
  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    If you're making a purely political argument, Warren is the most popular among people who are not already happy about Biden. Harris is most popular overall, but her support largely is the same people who already like Biden.

    I tend to think it's all irrelevant because there are like 20 concurrent crises Biden will have to face if he takes office and Warren is strongest on most of them.

    Herbert Hoover got 40% of the vote in 1932. Friendly reminder.
    Warren 2020
    joshofalltradesshrykeLabelDacSpoitLord_Asmodeus38thDoeNo-QuarteriTunesIsEvilElvenshae
  • MazzyxMazzyx Comedy Gold Registered User regular
    If you're making a purely political argument, Warren is the most popular among people who are not already happy about Biden. Harris is most popular overall, but her support largely is the same people who already like Biden.

    I tend to think it's all irrelevant because there are like 20 concurrent crises Biden will have to face if he takes office and Warren is strongest on most of them.

    I love Warren and would think she would be a great VP as she would be very interested in getting things pushed through and working. The VP has no real power but they do have the voice of the President behind them which can be useful.

    But also part of the reason outside of her being older is that right now putting an older white person on the ticket doesn't match what most people see as this moment. Though I think she would be a good pick anyway.

    03x29di.png
  • ElkiElki get busy Moderator, ClubPA mod
    edited August 1
    Being the only black senator in that list, and still barely passing 30% isn’t exactly showing me the overwhelming desire and unity in the whole black community for the wonderful vice presidency of Harris. I’m not gonna freak out if she gets picked even though I don’t like her, but I’m not sure why her poll numbers are supposed to be impressive.

    Elki on
    smCQ5WE.jpg
  • MazzyxMazzyx Comedy Gold Registered User regular
    Elki wrote: »
    Being the only black senator in that list, and still barely passing 30% isn’t exactly showing me the overwhelming desire and unity in the whole black community for the wonderful vice presidency of Harris. I’m not gonna freak out if she gets picked even though I don’t like her, but I’m not sure why her poll numbers are supposed to be impressive.

    Looks like a single choice outside of ranking. So given a single choice Harris comes out as the impressive leader, usually doubling most other candidates. Its about how the poll is written.

    03x29di.png
    shrykePreacherNobeard
  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    Mazzyx wrote: »
    If you're making a purely political argument, Warren is the most popular among people who are not already happy about Biden. Harris is most popular overall, but her support largely is the same people who already like Biden.

    I tend to think it's all irrelevant because there are like 20 concurrent crises Biden will have to face if he takes office and Warren is strongest on most of them.

    I love Warren and would think she would be a great VP as she would be very interested in getting things pushed through and working. The VP has no real power but they do have the voice of the President behind them which can be useful.

    But also part of the reason outside of her being older is that right now putting an older white person on the ticket doesn't match what most people see as this moment. Though I think she would be a good pick anyway.

    Vice Presidents have as much power as the President wants to give them. Biden was in charge of overseeing ARRA to reduce malfeasance/ in-admin Truman Commission sort of thing, for instance. Like Bum said, the number of raging forest fires involved would overwhelm even the most competent and sharpest President on their own. They're going to have to delegate a lot of things to people, and Veep is as much a person to get a good portfolio as any Cabinet member. Plus more flexible about what they are given since they are more like a Minister Without Portfolio rather than being in charge of Treasury or Education or whatever.

  • Commander ZoomCommander Zoom Registered User regular
    As noted, I'd prefer Warren, but she's problematic because of age and other reasons that I think are total bullshit.
    Both Biden and Harris are the preferred candidates for lots of people who aren't me, and I just have to accept that. :(

    steam_sig.png
    Steam, Warframe: Megajoule
    GiantGeek2020CelestialBadgerlonelyahavaToxNobeardkimeTicaldfjamLord_AsmodeusJaysonFourColanutNo-QuarterMrVyngaardButters
  • PantsBPantsB Registered User regular
    edited August 1
    Tox wrote: »
    Why? Why is just having another primary bad? This makes no sense.

    Who said not to have a primary? Or that it was bad to?

    The assumption people are making is that the VP who succeeds an old/deceased Biden will become the standard bearer for the party and will need to run for re-election for two more terms.

    It’s a bad assumption to make.

    For evidence, Biden was not the nominee four years ago. Also Quayle was not the nominee in 1996 and Cheney was not the nominee in 2008. Pence is very unlikely IMO to be the Republican nominee in 2024

    PantsB on
    11793-1.png
    day9gosu.png
    QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
    Heirjoshofalltrades
  • Captain CarrotCaptain Carrot Alexandria, VARegistered User regular
    Biden chose not to run four years ago, and there was a great deal of attention paid to his plans until he announced that decision, because that's the default assumption. Cheney's announcement was also a surprise, albeit not a huge one due to his unpopularity and health concerns. Quayle was a nonentity because nobody ever took him very seriously to start with as a national figure (despite a decent resume), and he was tarred with losing soundly to Clinton.

    Gore ran in 2000, and fairly romped to the nomination. Bush easily beat back Dole in 1988, though Republican nominations were their own pattern of "whoever came in second last time gets the prize" from 1972 to 2012. Mondale took it in 1984, even after he and Carter got walloped. Humphrey was Johnson's second, and Johnson won his own term after Kennedy kicked it. Nixon was Eisenhower's veep, and there was little serious challenge to him in 1960.

    There are exceptions, more in the last few administrations, but for the last century the assumption has been that the vice president is a major figure within the party. If the president dies, the vice president assumes the office and the role of party leader, without overcoming the thought that he will be a caretaker. If the president cannot run for reelection due to ineligibility or deliberate decision, the vice president will generally have an easy time winning the nomination.

    FencingsaxElvenshae
  • PantsBPantsB Registered User regular
    edited August 1
    Warren has no executive branch experience and 8 years in the Senate. I think there isn't a lot of support to claim she is more immediately ready than Harris (or Rice) if Biden were to pull a William Henry Harrison. Harris has 6 years as AG in the 2nd biggest government in the US before her 4 as Senator. When Warren entered electoral politics Harris had already been running the DA office of SF for half a decade. Rice has decades of experience at the highest levels of foreign policy and diplomacy in the executive branch.

    The same logic applies to a VP's ability to act as a "deputy" President with delegated administrative responsibilities. Additionally Biden and Warren by all accounts do not have a good working relationship so her ability to act as his subordinate partner would be limited. Rice and Harris have more experience running parts of an executive branch and get along with Biden better.

    It can vary how much power a VP has (Biden and Cheney had more than most, many have very little) but they don't get to set their own big policy planks. Warren without plans is just not the same.

    And yes Warren is "only" 70 but that would make her the 2nd oldest VP at inauguration ever. Two septugenarians from the northeast is very much not what the party wants to be.

    And picking the only white person on the shortlist sends a strongly dismissive message to black people. Representation matters and explicitly rejecting representation sends a strong message too. Sherrod Brown would be a reasonable pick (if you didn't mind losing the Senate seat) most years but then Biden would be sending a clear message of disrespect to women. If the shortlist is like 5 women of color and Warren, that sends a fairly hard to refute message that Biden would only pick a white lady.

    PantsB on
    11793-1.png
    day9gosu.png
    QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
    OremLKCommander ZoomjmcdonaldpainfulPleasance
  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited August 1
    List of Modern Vice Presidents:

    Mike Pence - Incumbent Vice President on Ballot
    Joe Biden - Skipped 2016 became Nominee in 2020
    Dick Cheney - Retired after 2008
    Al Gore - Became Nominee in 2000
    Dan Quayle - Did not become Nominee (got potatoed)
    George HW Bush - Became Nominee in 1998
    Walter Mondale - Became Nominee in 1984
    Nelson Rockefeller - Retired after 1977 (died 1979)
    Gerald Ford - Became Nominee (Incumbent President) in 1976
    Spiro Agnew - Resigned Vice Presidency in disgrace
    Hubert Humphrey - Became Nominee in 1968
    Lyndon Baines Johnson - Became Nominee (Incumbent President) in 1964
    Richard Nixon - Became Nominee in 1960 and 1968
    Alben Barkley - Announced consideration for being President in 1952, Party Elders considered him too old and pushed him out of consideration for Adlai Stevenson. Retired after 1953 (died 1956)
    Harry S. Truman - Became Nominee (Incumbent President) in 1948

    The overwhelming majority of Vice Presidents went on to become the nominee of their Party in subsequent elections. Of the ones who did not, two literally died within 4 years of leaving office, and one was forcibly removed from that office in disgrace. That basically leaves Dick Cheney and Dan Quayle. Dan Quayle having been eaten alive for misspelling potatoe and being the Veep in a one term Presidency are probably large factors in that. (He also cited health concerns in 1996 when declining to run) Cheney also had health concerns and was one of the most hated men in America at the end of his term in office with a 13% approval rating. Not really seeing why believing Biden's Veep is likely to be the candidate in the subsequent Presidential Election, assuming they win and do a decent job, should be treated as far-fetched.

    moniker on
    Stabbity StyleMild ConfusionOremLKCaptain CarrotGiantGeek2020jdarksunToxNobeardMrMistermcdermottGennenalyse RuebenMrVyngaardElldrenButtersLeeksElvenshae
  • OremLKOremLK Registered User regular
    edited August 1
    I feel like selecting a minority man would be slightly more acceptable in the current moment than a white woman; except that Biden does have some baggage in that area it'd be helpful to address. And, really, if there's not somebody who jumps out as "holy crap, pick that guy", why not both? But yeah, I definitely agree re: "representation matters". Especially now. It would feel like a slap in the face to pick a Pete Buttigieg type right now.

    Edit: No 2016!

    OremLK on
  • PantsBPantsB Registered User regular
    Biden chose not to run four years ago, and there was a great deal of attention paid to his plans until he announced that decision, because that's the default assumption. Cheney's announcement was also a surprise, albeit not a huge one due to his unpopularity and health concerns. Quayle was a nonentity because nobody ever took him very seriously to start with as a national figure (despite a decent resume), and he was tarred with losing soundly to Clinton.

    Gore ran in 2000, and fairly romped to the nomination. Bush easily beat back Dole in 1988, though Republican nominations were their own pattern of "whoever came in second last time gets the prize" from 1972 to 2012. Mondale took it in 1984, even after he and Carter got walloped. Humphrey was Johnson's second, and Johnson won his own term after Kennedy kicked it. Nixon was Eisenhower's veep, and there was little serious challenge to him in 1960.

    There are exceptions, more in the last few administrations, but for the last century the assumption has been that the vice president is a major figure within the party. If the president dies, the vice president assumes the office and the role of party leader, without overcoming the thought that he will be a caretaker. If the president cannot run for reelection due to ineligibility or deliberate decision, the vice president will generally have an easy time winning the nomination.

    There's a question of tbe direction of causality though. Bush I was Reagan's biggest challenger so it makes sense he would succeed him. Quayle was not a heavyweight so he didn't get the next nomination. Gore was expected to win the 92 nomination until his son died. Biden got picked as VP because he was a pretty BFD in the party before he was VP but not big enough to think he could take on HRC

    11793-1.png
    day9gosu.png
    QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
  • JragghenJragghen Registered User regular
    https://www.yahoo.com/gma/trumps-defiant-campaign-amid-pandemic-ramps-ground-game-100306079--abc-news-topstories.html
    Some Democrats who recognize the complicated reality of campaigning amid a pandemic still feel Biden remaining on the sidelines while the president's campaign pounds the pavement unchallenged could spell serious trouble in November.

    "We're going to lose Election Day," said Wilnelia Rivera, who was Rep. Ayanna Pressley's chief campaign strategist for her successful 2018 race in Massachusetts. "If the Biden campaign continues down this track of running a traditional, candidate-driven, TV-spending campaign, it's not going to be enough."

    "By now, I expected it to see a surrogate campaign of many aligned Democrats issuing a coordinated message of what it is that we need right now: to not just win in November, but to put our country back on track," said Rivera, a contributor to the book "Turnout: Mobilizing Voters in an Emergency."

    Rivera said she's not suggesting Democrats put volunteers or staff in "harm's way" amid the pandemic, but said they need to start realizing that Republicans "are not going to play this election fair" -- campaigning as if the country was not in the middle of a health crisis.

    Other veteran Democratic staffers who worked on campaigns during the 2020 primary, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because they didn't want to criticize the presumptive nominee's campaign, told ABC News they have been stunned at how long it's taken the Biden campaign to start to put staffers in key states. "I've never seen a general election campaign this understaffed in battleground states this close to Election Day," one source told ABC News.

    Legitimate concern. :/

  • syndalissyndalis Getting Classy On the WallRegistered User, Loves Apple Products regular
    I am actually happy Biden doesn’t have a traditional ground game. That would just create massive opportunities for community spread.

    They need people in-region, but fkn everything should be virtual, or phone based, or online spend, along with organic media coverage however you can generate it.

    Don’t fall into the trap of thinking knocking on doors is the only way to win this thing.

    SW-4158-3990-6116
    Let's play Mario Kart or something...
    TetraNitroCubanePreacherFencingsaxCommander ZoomGiantGeek2020CelestialBadgerzagdrobHavelock2.0joshofalltradesNobeardMoridin889CantideT-boltGennenalyse RuebenJaysonFourNo-QuarterMrVyngaardNiryaElldrenForarChiselphaneElvenshae
  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    PantsB wrote: »
    Biden chose not to run four years ago, and there was a great deal of attention paid to his plans until he announced that decision, because that's the default assumption. Cheney's announcement was also a surprise, albeit not a huge one due to his unpopularity and health concerns. Quayle was a nonentity because nobody ever took him very seriously to start with as a national figure (despite a decent resume), and he was tarred with losing soundly to Clinton.

    Gore ran in 2000, and fairly romped to the nomination. Bush easily beat back Dole in 1988, though Republican nominations were their own pattern of "whoever came in second last time gets the prize" from 1972 to 2012. Mondale took it in 1984, even after he and Carter got walloped. Humphrey was Johnson's second, and Johnson won his own term after Kennedy kicked it. Nixon was Eisenhower's veep, and there was little serious challenge to him in 1960.

    There are exceptions, more in the last few administrations, but for the last century the assumption has been that the vice president is a major figure within the party. If the president dies, the vice president assumes the office and the role of party leader, without overcoming the thought that he will be a caretaker. If the president cannot run for reelection due to ineligibility or deliberate decision, the vice president will generally have an easy time winning the nomination.

    There's a question of tbe direction of causality though. Bush I was Reagan's biggest challenger so it makes sense he would succeed him. Quayle was not a heavyweight so he didn't get the next nomination. Gore was expected to win the 92 nomination until his son died. Biden got picked as VP because he was a pretty BFD in the party before he was VP but not big enough to think he could take on HRC

    Also, his son had just died.

    PreacherFencingsaxStabbity StyleCommander ZoomGiantGeek2020jdarksunZonugalLabelCelestialBadgerzagdrobzepherinNobeardTicaldfjamMoridin889boogedybooSkeithGennenalyse RuebenLord_AsmodeusJaysonFourMr RayNo-QuarterAbsoluteZeroButtersLeeksstopgapElvenshae
  • OptyOpty Registered User regular
    edited August 1
    Jragghen wrote: »
    https://www.yahoo.com/gma/trumps-defiant-campaign-amid-pandemic-ramps-ground-game-100306079--abc-news-topstories.html
    Some Democrats who recognize the complicated reality of campaigning amid a pandemic still feel Biden remaining on the sidelines while the president's campaign pounds the pavement unchallenged could spell serious trouble in November.

    "We're going to lose Election Day," said Wilnelia Rivera, who was Rep. Ayanna Pressley's chief campaign strategist for her successful 2018 race in Massachusetts. "If the Biden campaign continues down this track of running a traditional, candidate-driven, TV-spending campaign, it's not going to be enough."

    "By now, I expected it to see a surrogate campaign of many aligned Democrats issuing a coordinated message of what it is that we need right now: to not just win in November, but to put our country back on track," said Rivera, a contributor to the book "Turnout: Mobilizing Voters in an Emergency."

    Rivera said she's not suggesting Democrats put volunteers or staff in "harm's way" amid the pandemic, but said they need to start realizing that Republicans "are not going to play this election fair" -- campaigning as if the country was not in the middle of a health crisis.

    Other veteran Democratic staffers who worked on campaigns during the 2020 primary, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because they didn't want to criticize the presumptive nominee's campaign, told ABC News they have been stunned at how long it's taken the Biden campaign to start to put staffers in key states. "I've never seen a general election campaign this understaffed in battleground states this close to Election Day," one source told ABC News.

    Legitimate concern. :/

    That second to last paragraph reads to me like "I'm not suggesting the Democrats put volunteers or staff in harm's way, but that's what the Republicans are doing so if we don't do that too we're at a disadvantage."

    Opty on
    Mild ConfusionFencingsaxmonikerQuidLucedesCommander ZoomGiantGeek2020OghulkMan in the MistsBandableNobeardElJeffeMoridin889Gennenalyse RuebenSpoitJaysonFourKayne Red RobeMr RayNo-QuarteriTunesIsEvilNiryaElldrenLeeks
  • Mild ConfusionMild Confusion Smash All Things Registered User regular
    edited August 1
    That article is so bad.

    It’s bringing up things Trump is doing as if Biden should emulate them. Like, it goes into Trump holding rallies yet fails to mention how COVID cases in those areas rise a couple weeks after. Or fails to mention how Trump campaign offices have been having outbreaks as well.

    Trump is running a campaign that is actively spreading COVID and the articles minimizes it.

    I mean, look at this (emphasis mine):
    Biden's team feels this approach aligns with the former vice president's view on the virus and commitment to following federal guidelines on virus safety, helping distinguish him from the president, who has taken an uneven, dismissive and sometimes flippant approach.

    Some Democratic strategists say Biden's move is risky, given the power and longevity of Trump's ground game, but others say he has a number of options available, including phone calls and enlisting networks of voters to do the work for him, that could make the difference.

    The Trump approach couldn't be more different. Last weekend alone, as part of the Trump campaign's "100 Days Out Weekend," the Trump team held at least 70 events ranging from veteran outreach to voter registration drives from Mohave County, Arizona, to Madison, Maine, according to the Republican Party's public schedule.

    Events have featured varying levels of safety precautions. Many do not implement social distancing while some do, and no Trump campaign events nationwide require masks to attend, according to multiple sources.

    Oh, by all means, let’s just do what Trump is doing and risk lives because not doing that is “risky”.

    Mild Confusion on
    steam_sig.png

    Battlenet ID: MildC#11186 - If I'm in the game, send me an invite at anytime and I'll play.
    PreacherCommander ZoomHavelock2.0Man in the MistsQanamilTicaldfjamMoridin889Gennenalyse RuebenJaysonFourTarantioeMoanderMrVyngaardLeeksEinzel
  • MvrckMvrck Registered User regular
    PantsB wrote: »
    Warren has no executive branch experience and 8 years in the Senate. I think there isn't a lot of support to claim she is more immediately ready than Harris (or Rice) if Biden were to pull a William Henry Harrison.

    She literally was at the head of creating a new government agency (CFPB) from scratch. She may have the most pertinent knowledge of how to fix all the damage Trump has done to the Executive out of anyone currently serving in politics.

    PwH4Ipj.jpg
    LabelHeirMan in the MistsNobeardAistanshrykeTrajan45Moridin889Gennenalyse RuebenSpoitLord_AsmodeusMr Ray38thDoeMrVyngaardForarButtersElvenshae
  • XantomasXantomas totally awesome? Registered User regular
    Trump won without much of a ground game didn't he? I seem to remember that being a thing people pointed out. He was disorganized and relied on online presence. It's too dangerous for traditional politics right now and I think Biden's campaign should be thinking future strategy and not past strategy and try and innovate and make the best of online campaigning and organizing and point out every day how Trump's rallies are selfish and dangerous and hurting Americans.

    Commander ZoomDark_SideNobeard
  • SimpsoniaSimpsonia Registered User regular
    PantsB wrote: »
    Warren has no executive branch experience and 8 years in the Senate. I think there isn't a lot of support to claim she is more immediately ready than Harris (or Rice) if Biden were to pull a William Henry Harrison. Harris has 6 years as AG in the 2nd biggest government in the US before her 4 as Senator. When Warren entered electoral politics Harris had already been running the DA office of SF for half a decade. Rice has decades of experience at the highest levels of foreign policy and diplomacy in the executive branch.

    You don't think that the woman that has the most detailed, researched, and reality-oriented policies of literally every ill facing society you can imagine (complete with the math to support it), already developed and ready to be implemented, wouldn't be more ready to step in as the president?

    CelestialBadgerMan in the MistsMegaMan001NobeardHeirTicaldfjamFencingsaxCantideGennenalyse RuebenLord_AsmodeusShadowhopepainfulPleasanceForarElvenshaeEinzel
  • V1mV1m Registered User regular
    Marathon wrote: »
    How can any Republican even attempt to distance themselves from Trump when the last four years was basically a contest to see which one of them could shamelessly kiss his ass the most?

    "But we've always been at war with Eastasia!"

    TicaldfjamMr RayMrVyngaardpainfulPleasancestopgapElvenshae
This discussion has been closed.