• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

The 2016 Presidential Election Thread

Here's a hypothetical: Obama decides to reach out in 2012 by dumping Biden and nominating a moderate Republican for VP.

Not likely to happen but imagine the implications come 2016!
 
leftysergeant said:
If we give Obama four more years and a 70-D 30 R Senate....
Click to expand...

This is the kind of foolishness that makes me wonder why you bother posting in the politics forum. Simple question: What would it take to give the Democrats a 70-30 Senate in 2012?

Simple answer: It can't happen. In 2012, the Democrats are defending 23 seats (counting Independents Lieberman and Sanders) and the GOP has to hold 10. So even if the Democrats ran the table it would still only give them 63-37, and that assumes the Donks can win in Indiana, Wyoming, Utah and Nevada. Okay, so we'll assume they pick up Scott Brown's seat in Massachusetts; they still have to hold Jon Testor's seat in Montana, Kent Conrad's (retiring) seat in North Dakota, and Jim Webb's (retiring) seat in Virginian just to keep a majority.
 
BenBurch said:
Can't see it. Could see Hillary. Imagine the brain aneurysms on the part of some Republicans if she ever got sworn in?
Click to expand...

Well, if he picked her at the convention and he won, they wouldn't have a choice. I will say this; George W. Bush's biggest political mistake was keeping Cheney for the second term. It left the position of heir apparent open. If we assume the notion of Biden running in 2016 is a joke (and it is, his fantasies notwithstanding) then there will be a blood-letting battle among the Democrats whether Obama wins in 2012 or he loses.
 
Brainster said:
I will say this; George W. Bush's biggest political mistake was keeping Cheney for the second term.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure I agree with this but let's go with it for a moment. First, I do subscribe to the notion that Cheney was really the power behind the throne. I see no reason why he would depose himself. Your thoughts?

Second, who would you have selected as the Veep? Jeb would have been the strongest candidate but I don't think the good ole USA was ready for a dynasty pick. Powell was out of favor. Rice? Miers? OK, ok, just kidding with that last one.
 
SezMe said:
I'm not sure I agree with this but let's go with it for a moment. First, I do subscribe to the notion that Cheney was really the power behind the throne. I see no reason why he would depose himself. Your thoughts?

Second, who would you have selected as the Veep? Jeb would have been the strongest candidate but I don't think the good ole USA was ready for a dynasty pick. Powell was out of favor. Rice? Miers? OK, ok, just kidding with that last one.
Click to expand...

Read Cheney's book to find out the many disagreements he had (and lost) with President Bush.

On potential 2004 VP candidates, Mitt Romney is the most obvious. Savior of the Winter 2002 Olympics, followed up by a gubernatorial win in one of the most liberal states in the nation. Not that he was likely to bring Massachusetts over to the GOP column especially with Kerry the Democratic nominee, but still a good way to blunt the claims of Republican extremism.

There were a number of other good candidates including Lamar Alexander, Jon Kyl, Rudy Giuliani, Bill Frist, Colin Powell, even McCain, although that would have been problematic given the testy relationship between the two.
 
Brainster said:
I will say this; George W. Bush's biggest political mistake was keeping Cheney for the second term. It left the position of heir apparent open.
Click to expand...
Let's open our history book and look at Veeps who were subsequently elected to the Presidency. I can only find four:

Prez|Veep
George Washington (1789-1797)|John Adams (1789-1797)
John Adams (1797-1801)|Thomas Jefferson (1797-1801)
Andrew Jackson (1829-1837)|Martin Van Buren (1833-1837)
Ronald Reagan (1981-1989)|George Bush (1981-1989)

Note that there is only ONE example in the last ~150 years. Thus, I reject your notion that the Vice-Presidency is a stepping stone up.
 
Brainster said:
Read Cheney's book to find out the many disagreements he had (and lost) with President Bush.
Click to expand...
My Kindle backlog is already too big. I won't dispute that Cheney lost a number of policy positions with Bush. That says nothing about how many he prevailed over. We probably should agree to disagree on this point as it is too far off topic.
 
SezMe said:
Let's open our history book and look at Veeps who were subsequently elected to the Presidency. I can only find four:

Prez|Veep
George Washington (1789-1797)|John Adams (1789-1797)
John Adams (1797-1801)|Thomas Jefferson (1797-1801)
Andrew Jackson (1829-1837)|Martin Van Buren (1833-1837)
Ronald Reagan (1981-1989)|George Bush (1981-1989)
Note that there is only ONE example in the last ~150 years. Thus, I reject your notion that the Vice-Presidency is a stepping stone up.
Click to expand...

Eisenhower - Nixon?

Kennedy - Johnson was elected, the time that he ran after Kennedy died..
Same with FDR - Truman.
 
shadron said:
Eisenhower - Nixon?
Click to expand...
I didn't count Nixon because he did not directly move from VP to Prez which, as I read Brainster's post, was his point.


shadron said:
Kennedy - Johnson was elected, the time that he ran after Kennedy died.
Click to expand...
Yeah, but he was running as an incumbent, not as a VP. Ditto Truman.

Brainster's point was that the VP slot could be used to anoint an heir apparent. It was that view that I was rejecting.
 
SezMe said:
I didn't count Nixon because he did not directly move from VP to Prez which, as I read Brainster's post, was his point.



Yeah, but he was running as an incumbent, not as a VP. Ditto Truman.

Brainster's point was that the VP slot could be used to anoint an heir apparent. It was that view that I was rejecting.
Click to expand...

Well, considering the circumstances of numerous transitions, the number of sitting Veeps who won the presidency is not such an anomaly. I don't have the figures for the number of sitting veeps who ran and lost, but there are something like 22 transitions from one party to another. In those 22, obviously the sitting veep couldn't have been "promoted" - he was on the other side.

Then you have three or four elections where the vice presidency was vacated, and you have the ones who even if elected to a second term, inherited the job due to the death of the Presidnet (five such cases). And lastly, a few like Cheney, where the Vice President was never a consideration for the job in the first place and made no effort to go after the nomination. Alben Barkley made a half-hearted attempt in 1952, but he was 74 and withdrew within weeks of announcing.

In short, all of those being removed, the numerical probability changes somewhat. I'd be curious to see some stats (a quick google didn't help) as to number of sitting veeps who ran for the higher office. I'm quite sure it's a fair number. As such, I think my earlier observation and Brainster's contention are probably fair. How many sitting veeps did not even run since Barkley? Any who've had the chance got their party's nomination, with the exception of Cheney - who never considered running. All the others ran for President straight from their VP jobs.

So, it's a launching pad. A legitimate one.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom