Then why post it at all?
“I saw this answer scribbled on the toilet stall wall. Make of it what you will!”
“I had a dream about the answer to the question. May or may not have any bearing, but here you go!”
Well it does check out. You don’t need much more than a knowledge of history to know that Bush won as VP 40 years ago and then if you know your list of presidents you quickly realize that he was the only example in the 20th century. And then you realize that while plenty of VPs became President that it was all due to vacancies created by death (or you’re talking about Ford) and that yes, it was 150 years between van Buren and Bush and that the only others to do it were Adams and Jefferson.
Nominating a sitting VP is about the most obvious worst decision a party can make regardless of the actual candidate.
To provide the facts and leave it to the reader to decide whether or not losing 6 out of 10 amounts to “almost never winning.”
Moderating:
@Railer13 - use of AI generated content for a post has been something of an ongoing discussion for both the board and the mods. For the moment, we have largely left it to posters to justify or refute the use of AI but in general we don’t consider it authoritative. Giving you credit, you pointed out that it was wrong without your repeated corrections. But as you mentioned, and the post after demonstrates, it’s hijack. We (the board) are trusting to our posters to provide good cites and information - leaving that to AI reduces our value and may increase disinformation.
No moderation on the use of AI per our current rules, a caution on the hijack, and a reminder to all to be careful. If any want to discuss how AI use on the board can be productive, please spin off a new thread.
Noted.
The last three candidates that really galvanized Democratic voters were JFK, Clinton and Obama.
So it’s simple. Someone in their 40s with charisma and a pleasant demeanor. So that leaves us with Buttigieg. I’ll also accept Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (39 years old when the next election happens.)
They’re my favorites at this point.
Personally I’d prefer to see AOC primary Schumer in 2028, and Pritzker as the nominee.
The sample size of VP candidates is too small to draw statistical conclusions.
But I gently lean towards what asterion says above.
The problem is that voters lately dislike the politicians of the past and want something new. A veep candidate is almost by definition tied to the past.
Jon Ossoff? I haven’t seen any real bad things about him yet. I’ve watched a couple of speeches and he seems good. If anyone has otherwise, please show.
Apologies if this has been already entered into discussion, I didn’t have the time to read through nigh on 2k posts.
If one were curious, one could use the search tool to look for his name in the thread; yes, Ossoff has been mentioned numerous times, including once yesterday.
I don’t know a great deal about him, but I’ve seen him in television interviews a number of times, especially when he was first elected to the Senate. I like his presence, and he clearly knows his stuff. The Senate seat is the only public office which he’s ever held, but he did serve five years as a legislative aid to one of Georgia’s U.S. Representatives.
Ossoff currently sits at number 3 on my list of Three Favorites, behind Pritzker and Warnock. There is a lot to like about Jon Ossoff.
One can be curious and use the search tool to find that it sucks. I don’t want to start an argument, but that was kind of dickish.
I was impressed with his interview with Tim Miller on the Bulwark podcast last week.
Apologies, it was. I don’t find the search tool to be awesome, either, but for a simple search like “is this word in this thread,” it’s pretty straightforward, at least to me. YMMV, and again, my apologies.
Aha! He’ll be 41 in 2028 and he does have charisma and an Obamanian way of speaking. He could be The One.
First, he’ll need to get re-elected to the Senate this November. It’s Georgia, so no matter who the gets the Republican nomination, it will be close.
Yes, I agree that Ossoff should probably be our top choice IF he wins in November and IF he can overcome his stated reluctance, as a father of two young children, to transition directly from a long and demanding re-election campaign to an even longer and more demanding Presidential campaign.
Otherwise, my next tier right now would be Van Hollen, Cooper and AOC.
Warnock could be intriguing; do you know if he’s shown any signs of running?
I like Pritzker OK, but his margins of victory haven’t been very impressive for a Democrat in Illinois, even against distinctly crappy opponents. And I think a billionaire who used to serve on the AIPAC board is going to face some hard headwinds in this primary.
I’m just skimming here but will be very interested to come back, oh say in a year, and see which of our collective guesses actually are contenders, and more so, if any gathering buzz are folk we haven’t even thought about?
While I love AOC, there is no way on this earth she would (I toggled back and forth between would and could) be elected president at this time. A young, smart, attractive woman of color? That would give the heebie jeebies insta-no to 50% of the electorate.
It sucks, but I fear it is true.