I think it’s more related to the era than the party. I believe the first VP to be an active member of an administration was Walter Mondale. Prior to that, you were there for geographical and/or ideological balance. I don’t think Rockefeller, Ford, Agnew, Humphrey, LBJ, or Nixon did much but go to funerals and inquire daily as to the president’s health.
I think due to his age, Reagan picked the greater Bush to be an active member of the administration. Bush and Quayle, maybe not so much. Since then, the VP has been a pretty active member of the administration.
Biden was not even close to “pure political attraction”, nor was Gore, nor was Mondale (IIRC). Edwards sort of was, and no idea for Lieberman. Going back further, LBJ was not an “attraction” either. Don’t know about Truman off the top of my head.
Cheney was picked to do stuff, but Palin certainly wasn’t – she was about as pure a “political attraction” as there is. Ryan was picked for political reasons – because he was thought to be a rising star. The aforementioned Quayle was obviously just politics. Bush I was not.
So your assertion is silly, to put it mildly. Both parties have picked “functional” VPs, and both have picked “politically attractive” VPs.
No, really, Bush was a political choice, because he was the primary runner-up and the Reagan team figured he would reach toward the more moderate base of the party.
Nixon’s VP nominee in that election was Henry Cabot Lodge, a liberalish Republican from Massachusetts, who later served as LBJ’s ambassador to South Vietnam.
This whole thread is blown up now because Warren is now NOT ruling out a Presidential bid, which translated into plain language is, “If Hillary’s out, I’m in.”
There is no way Warren is going to be elected president. The amount of enthusiastic support she gets from this MB is inversely proportional to her electoral chances for success.
By your definition of “progressive”, none. The American electorate is nothing like the SDMB, and it doesn’t matter how many articles you find that divvies them up seventeen different ways.
I don’t think that word has a precise enough meaning for that sentence to have an answer. But if it means what you think it means, I agree with Shodan.
Winning elections involves decades of laying the groundwork by changing minds. Warren could end up being part of a sea change in US politics, because she is actually making an argument. But it will take 20-30 years of more people than her making that argument before it bears fruit. In 2016, no progressive can win a Presidential election.
Polls indicate that on many issues the American people are WAAAAAAY to the left of Washington. Marijuana legalization, income inequality, and quite recently, gayness. So don’t be so sure about that, Shodan.
On gay rights and marijuana, quite true, but that establishes just as much space for a libertarian as a progressive.
On income inequality, much like climate change, Americans are for doing something, but the details of that something can arouse fierce opposition when they conflict with Americans’ personal economic interests. You can’t win the Presidency promising to raise taxes on the middle, or even the upper middle, class. You can’t win the Presidency promising to make our energy bills higher. And you can’t win the Presidency promising to kill job creation in the energy industry.
I think it is moderately likely there will be a major financial and economic crash well before 20-30 years from now. If that happens people may well reject the current two branches (Democratic and Republican) of the Wall Street Party we now have.
There are already anti-Wall street elements in both parties. If anything, the GOP side is stronger. Even Warren supports the Ex-Im Bank. She’s just not as anti-Wall Street as she thinks she is.
