Will we see another serious Presidential candidacy from a Vice President anytime soon?

[dalej42]

Dick Cheney wasn't considered a serious candidate for the Presidency during George W Bush's administration. I don't think too many people think Joe Biden is going to run for President in 2016.

This breaks a long string. Mondale ran after Carter was defeated. George H. W. Bush ran after Reagan left after term limits. Gore ran after Clinton left after term limits as well.

Of course, Dan Quayle flirted with a run at the Presidency but didn't get very far. I expect the same would have happened if Palin would have been elected Vice President.

Is it likely the US will have a sitting VP who will run a serious presidential campaign any time soon? I could see Mitch Romney picking a a Rubio or Rick Perry as a VP candidate and if Romney won, a potential run from Romney's VP.

Otherwise, if Obama wins reelection, then the Democratic field is wide open in 2016. Since I don't see a Gore run in 2016, it will have been a very long time until a Vice President makes a serious presidential run.

[Least Original User Name Ever]

It's possible that Biden would step down and someone else could become the Vice President(ial nominee).

[Chronos]

It's possible that Biden would step down and someone else could become the Vice President(ial nominee). Yeah, people (I think including myself) were saying that about Cheney, too, but it never happened. Barring death or other major health problem, I'm not seeing it.

[Simplicio]

Palin or Edwards seem like they would've run had they made it to the VP spot. So its hardly impossible for future Prez candidates to make it to VP.

Seems to be a pattern of more inexperienced Presidential Nominees now pick older, elder-stateman types (Biden, Cheney) who are unlikely to run themselves after their VP terms to shore up their ticket, while older, greyer nominees pick young up and comers who likely would like to run for Prez (Palin, Edwards, Quayle) for much the same reason.

So I guess we'll see it when another older, more experienced candidate wins the Presidency. Of course, Quayle, Edwards and Palin all ended up seeming like they'd make terrible Presidents for various reasons, so perhaps we should be grateful that this doesn't happen more often.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

It's hard to speculate even on who the Dems would put at the top of the ticket in 2016, much less whether that candidate's VP choice would be a viable candidate down the line.

With the Pubs, I think that there are a small handful of potential VP prospects who could be viable themselves at some point - Pawlenty, Christie, Huckabee, Daniels, Jeb.

Of course, they would only be former VP candidates, not actual veeps. The GOP will have to wait until 2024 to have a shot at electing a former veep.

So, I guess the answer to the OP is (barring something radical happening to a sitting Prez) no, not anytime soon

[Little Nemo]

I remember back around 1980 when pundits were saying that the Presidency had become a one-term job. They based this apparently on Ford and Carter's inability to get re-elected.

Since 1980, three out of four presidents have been elected to a second term.

And that's what we're looking at here. We have a string of one example with maybe a second one. That's not really enough to establish a pattern.

[Captain Amazing]

Of course, they would only be former VP candidates, not actual veeps. The GOP will have to wait until 2024 to have a shot at electing a former veep.


2020, right? A hypothetical Republican candidate wins in 2012, spends 8 years as president, and then his VP runs.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

2020, right? A hypothetical Republican candidate wins in 2012, spends 8 years as president, and then his VP runs.
I don't think the Republicans have any chance in 2012. I think Obama's reelection is a foregone consclusion.

[Chronos]

Then again, Dio, you also thought the same thing about the 2010 elections. I'd love to share your optimism, but I'm afraid I can't consider anything in politics foregone.

[RTFirefly]

I remember back around 1980 when pundits were saying that the Presidency had become a one-term job. They based this apparently on Ford and Carter's inability to get re-elected.

Since 1980, three out of four presidents have been elected to a second term.

And that's what we're looking at here. We have a string of one example with maybe a second one. That's not really enough to establish a pattern.True enough. And the weird thing is, depending on one's definition of 'anytime soon' (and for me, three Presidential elections away isn't 'soon'), that'll be enough to answer the OP's question in the negative if, as anticipated, Biden is once again Obama's running mate in 2012.

Because then the earliest natural path for a VP to run for President would be in 2020, and that path would involve the GOP candidate winning in 2012 and running for re-election in 2016.

If, OTOH, Obama and Biden win re-election next year, Obama's successor (of either party) would almost certainly run for re-election in 2020, so a VP probably wouldn't run until 2024.

[RTFirefly]

I don't think the Republicans have any chance in 2012. I think Obama's reelection is a foregone consclusion.I wish I could agree with you.

It's gonna be a contest between (a) how sucky the economy is next fall, and (b) how lousy (or how wounded by the primaries) the GOP candidate is.

Best guess for (a) is, pretty damned sucky in the ways that count. Even before this month's terrible jobs report, the employment-to-population ratio was going nowhere.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

But Obama inherited that. Comparatively speaking the economy has gone north under his stewardship, it's doing it at a glacial pace (as was to be expected), but it's better now than it was when he got it. The conventional wisdom about elections following the economy is true, but I think this is an exception given what Obama inherited. He stopped a free fall.

There's also the fact that the Republicans simply don't have a truly plausible alternative.

[RTFirefly]

But Obama inherited that. Comparatively speaking the economy has gone north under his stewardship, it's doing it at a glacial pace (as was to be expected), but it's better now than it was when he got it. The conventional wisdom about elections following the economy is true, but I think this is an exception given what Obama inherited. He stopped a free fall. No offense, but did you see how much slack the voters cut the Democratic Party last fall on that account?

There's also the fact that the Republicans simply don't have a truly plausible alternative.It's a real race to the bottom, I tell ya. :)

[alphaboi867]

But Obama inherited that...

Nobody cares what Obama inherited; they just want him to "fix" things. His reelection is as far from being a "foregone consclusion" as his defeat is.

[XT]

I don't think the Republicans have any chance in 2012. I think Obama's reelection is a foregone consclusion.

It's not a foregone conclusion with the continuing economic woes (whether Obama inherited them or not he's going to be be blamed for them comes the next election). However, I actually agree with you that Obama is almost certainly going to win. That's because the Republicans are their own worse enemy, and seem bound and determined to embrace the crazy. They have a golden opportunity here to recapture the presidency, but instead of focusing on the economy and putting the Dems on the defensive they are allowing the Dems to focus on what a freak show Republican politics have become.

Which is good, because I WANT Obama to win a second term and have more of a chance to dig us out of this mess. I think he's the man to do it, and I don't see any potential Republican politicians who are worthy of being president. That might change in the run up, but I'm not seeing any moderate Republicans, or moderation of the stupidly hard line the Republican party is taking on any issues that are important to the recovery of our economy, and certainly none that I'd even consider voting for in the next election.

-XT

[Chronos]

The relevant question is not whether Obama actually inherited the mess, or whether he stopped the free-fall. The relevant question is whether the majority of voters think he did. Yeah, a lot of voters will be wrong, but wrong folks' votes count the same as anyone else's.

[XT]

Exactly. It's all about perception. Historically, even popular presidents have a lot of issues with the voters when the economy is in the tank, even if they basically inherited the problems. When they became president the voters assume the new guy will make everything work...whether it's realistic that said president do that or not, or even if it's not completely in the presidents hands (since the Congress also has some small impact on things like the budget and the economy :p).

So, what's going to matter is how the voters think Obama is doing wrt the economy both in his first terms and in terms of what he'd be able to do in his second. I'd think things were grim for Obama and his chances of a second term except that the Republicans are stepping on their own crank...and not in a good way (i.e. stepping on all of the freaking wackjob cranks playing to the various right wing factions and wacky fringe groups out there).

Luckily for Obama and the Democrats the Republicans are doing everything in their power to make sure that Obama has a second term!

-XT

[boytyperanma]

I don't think the Republicans have any chance in 2012. I think Obama's reelection is a foregone consclusion.

I remember you made similar predictions in the race between Scott Brown and Martha Coakley. We saw how that turned out. I'd never underestimate the Democrats ability to blow a sure thing.


On the matter of serious Vice Presidental candidates for President, I think the time where that was possible has passed. The new role of the Vice president seems to be to deflect negative attention away from the president. VP's spend their time as carnival side shows whether it be comic relief, alternate agendas or simply swearing at people to get attention. By the time a VP has spent 8 years under a president their ability to present themselves as the next great leader has been shot to shit.

I also think it's incredibly unrealistic for a VP to be dropped after 4 years unless they die or resign in scandal. A president opting for a different VP after 4 years is either indecisive or made a bad choice to begin with, making the chances of that president being elected again rather low.

[gonzomax]

But Obama inherited that. Comparatively speaking the economy has gone north under his stewardship, it's doing it at a glacial pace (as was to be expected), but it's better now than it was when he got it. The conventional wisdom about elections following the economy is true, but I think this is an exception given what Obama inherited. He stopped a free fall.

There's also the fact that the Republicans simply don't have a truly plausible alternative.

Every TV news station is pounding Obama for the lack of jobs. Last month when job creation was higher than expected, it was quiet. This month when the jobs slipped, he is getting creamed. I have seen 3 commentators today discussing how much trouble he is in.
The news stations are doing their best to undermine him. i am beginning to believe they can get it done.
The Repubs caused this mess. If they got back in they would make it much worse. But they control the media and the Dems are screwed.
I still think perp walking a few bankers would help Obama out quite a bit.

[Quartz]

If Obama is doing well in 2014 and has any sense he'll ditch Biden as VP to annoint a successor - likely Hilary - who will then have a huge advantage as a sitting VP.

[Lord Feldon]

The president doesn't have the power to "ditch" the vice president. He could ask Biden to resign, but Biden could tell him where to stick it.

[boytyperanma]

The president doesn't have the power to "ditch" the vice president. He could ask Biden to resign, but Biden could tell him where to stick it.

And rightfully so, he left a good senate seat to get that job he can't exactly go to Chris Coons and tell him to step aside I need my seat back.

If Obama turns around to Biden and says I'm going drop you Biden's response should be 'go fuck yourself' then proceed to torpedo Obama's campaign.

[BigT]

The president doesn't have the power to "ditch" the vice president. He could ask Biden to resign, but Biden could tell him where to stick it.

He can still "ditch" him as a recommendation, while keeping him on the job.

[Saint Cad]

Every TV news station is pounding Obama for the lack of jobs. Last month when job creation was higher than expected, it was quiet. This month when the jobs slipped, he is getting creamed. I have seen 3 commentators today discussing how much trouble he is in.
The news stations are doing their best to undermine him. i am beginning to believe they can get it done.


Probably even with the higher numbers, they fall well below the estimates Uncle Joe gave us for created jobs by the end of 2010 (http://newsbusters.org/blogs/julia-seymour/2010/06/03/bidens-job-prediction-falls-5-2-million-short-obamas-promise) back in 2010 (http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:rOVz_N5t2i8J:nation.foxnews.com/vice-president-joe-biden/2010/04/23/biden-predicts-500000-jobs-created-month-soon+biden+500,000+jobs+a+month&cd=4&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us). Or how one good month does not trump two bad months (May/June 2011) (http://current.com/news/93262447_latest-job-numbers-2-1-2-million-jobs-lost-under-obama.htm) or how despite having deficit spending as a percent of GDP the third highest ever (http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/federal_deficit_chart.html)(and the two beating it are the World Wars) and twice as much as the Depression, unemploment is higher than his lofty predictions (http://seekingalpha.com/article/124458-obama-s-unemployment-forecast-much-too-rosy). But of course, Keynesian economics (http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2011/02/the-political-failure-of-keynesian-economics/71363/)is working (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/06/06/the_failure_of_obamanomics_96878.html).

[Knorf]

It's hard to speculate even on who the Dems would put at the top of the ticket in 2016, much less whether that candidate's VP choice would be a viable candidate down the line.

You don't think Hillary Clinton will be the front-runner in 2016?

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Possibly, but she'd be pushing 70. I guess it's a case of whether she still wants it. I guess she wouldn't be any older than Reagan was.

[Knorf]

Possibly, but she'd be pushing 70. I guess it's a case of whether she still wants it. I guess she wouldn't be any older than Reagan was.

My guess is that she'll be a lot healthier and lot more together mentally than he was at that age as well.

[Chronos]

Me, I'm still hoping for Schweitzer in 2016.

[Recovering Republican]

Is it likely the US will have a sitting VP who will run a serious presidential campaign any time soon? I could see Mitch Romney picking a a Rubio or Rick Perry as a VP candidate and if Romney won, a potential run from Romney's VP.

.

The thing is, while Vice-Presidents like to run, they rarely win.

The only sitting Veeps to ever win the presidency were Martin Van Buren (#8 in 1838) and George H. Bush (#41 in 1988). Nixon won after being out of the office for a while.

By comparison, 8 guys got the job because the top guy died, and one because he resigned. You have a three time greater chance of getting the job if something bad happens to the boss.

Part of the problem is, as Veep you are seen as a lacky, the guy who has no identity, but has to go out there and defend whatever the boss did. Which means you already have all his enemies, and you need to work on his friends.

And let's be honest, sometimes, these guys get picked because they are "Assassination Insurance". No one would want to shoot the president and put THAT idiot in charge. He's usually picked as a sop to whatever interest group felt slighted in the runup. The Establishment felt slighted by Reagan's populist appeal, so Bush-41 was a concession to the Country Clubbers. Quayle was a nod to the conservatives. Cheney was a nod to people who though Bush Jr. was weak on policy.